# Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem. 

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love? 

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual.  So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence,  since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence. 

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins. 

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one. 

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!


----------



## Politico (Apr 30, 2013)

No.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... _you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy._ I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> *You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity.* By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...


As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2013)

When someone believes something, it's true. That is, a truth exists in the universe. That could be totally subjective and impossible to demonstrate to or share with another. That is the problem with this argument. Does God exist? Yes, if you believe. Can you prove it to others? No. All you can prove is that YOU believe and, thus, belief exists. That is all you can show to the world.


----------



## S.J. (Apr 30, 2013)

I have better proof than that, but nothing I would share with the swine on these boards.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2013)

You've proven spirituality exists.

By your logic we can say that 911 really was an inside job simply because some people believe that it wash.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Your qualification for what passes for "definitive Proof" is pretty freaking loose. It doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



All you have established is that spirituality exists. Proof of the existence of a deity requires far more than that. Humans are fallible and so is their spirituality. Under your "logic" that makes your God fallible too since his existence depends entirely upon imperfect humans ability to conceive of his existence. Since you raised the specter of spirituality being "proof" for the existence of other worldly entities you are claiming that demons exist too. Is that where you really want to go with this argument?


----------



## editec (Apr 30, 2013)

Circular logic is circular.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 30, 2013)

A nation that prays to God for true guidance will receive true guidance. Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same. A person who does not believe in God will not ask for guidance and will receive none.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> A nation that prays to God for true guidance will receive true guidance. Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same. A person who does not believe in God will not ask for guidance and will receive none.



Demonstrably false.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



You make me laugh longtime.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> All you have established is that spirituality exists. Proof of the existence of a deity requires far more than that. Humans are fallible and so is their spirituality. Under your "logic" that makes your God fallible too since his existence depends entirely upon imperfect humans ability to conceive of his existence. Since you raised the specter of spirituality being "proof" for the existence of other worldly entities you are claiming that demons exist too. Is that where you really want to go with this argument?



I have established that spirituality has always existed in humans, which means 'God' exists. You can't have spirituality and not be spiritual. I never said I could prove WHOSE god(s) exist. 

Proof of the existence of a deity requires far more? Such as? I mean, I proved that man has always worshiped something, and Darwin said if a species has inherent traits they must be fundamental. Mankind has always had this fundamental behavior, therefore, there must be a purpose. Something has to first exist, in order to have purpose. If there were no God, human spirituality would have vanished in our species long ago. 

Humans ARE fallible, and so is their spirituality. You can say that Religion is man's fallible way of understanding their spiritual maker. I don't understand how man's fallibility means God must also be fallible. I also don't understand why God has to be infallible to exist. Nor does existence demand or require belief. Black holes existed in the universe long before we believed they existed. 

Demons? Interesting twist! Of course, we can use basic physical principles and advanced logic, and figure out, if "good" exists, then "evil" must also exist. If it didn't, we'd have no idea of what "good" is. This means demon spirits do exist, and as a matter of fact, some humans worship these demon spirits, and that is their God. Again... never claimed I could prove WHOSE god exists.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.



Hmm... So if an omnipotent spirit decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > All you have established is that spirituality exists. Proof of the existence of a deity requires far more than that. Humans are fallible and so is their spirituality. Under your "logic" that makes your God fallible too since his existence depends entirely upon imperfect humans ability to conceive of his existence. Since you raised the specter of spirituality being "proof" for the existence of other worldly entities you are claiming that demons exist too. Is that where you really want to go with this argument?
> ...



I think you're supremely confused as to what "proof" means.

"Spirituality" in a person does not prove God. For it to be proof, you'd have to show that it cannot be an abstract reality the person is creating in his/her own mind. A frame of being they chose to live as - despite whether God exists or not. Meaning, just because a person is "spiritual" does not mean  that whatever they pray to or believe in  ACTUALLY EXISTS. 

That's the most retarded excuse for "proof" I could possibly imagine.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> When someone believes something, it's true. That is, a truth exists in the universe. That could be totally subjective and impossible to demonstrate to or share with another. That is the problem with this argument. Does God exist? Yes, if you believe. Can you prove it to others? No. All you can prove is that YOU believe and, thus, belief exists. That is all you can show to the world.



While I see your point from a philosophical sense, you are ignoring humans profound connection with spiritual belief, which as existed as long as man has existed. For this fundamental characteristic to always be a part of who we are and what we are, is very important in this argument, but you are choosing to ignore it. Something greater than self has to exist, because humans have this burning inherent need or requirement to worship something greater than self, and they always have. 

Okay, let me ask you this... Do you love your mother? Can you give me proof that you love your mother? Does my belief that you love your mother, have anything to do with whether you actually love your mother, or whether your love is real? Do you simply "believe" you love your mother, or do you really love her?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> I think you're supremely confused as to what "proof" means.
> 
> "Spirituality" in a person does not prove God. For it to be proof, you'd have to show that it cannot be an abstract reality the person is creating in his/her own mind. A frame of being they chose to live as - despite whether God exists or not. Meaning, just because a person is "spiritual" does not mean whatever they pray to or believe in  ACTUALLY EXISTS.
> 
> That's the most retarded excuse for "proof" I could possibly imagine.



No, you are the one who is confusing physical proof with spiritual proof. You are demanding physical evidence to support something not of the physical world. You are also requiring that any proof of God has to define what incarnation of God, and this is illogical as well. I can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, two NFL teams will play in the Super Bowl this season. I don't have to tell you which teams to prove that.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.
> ...



Omnipotence is a paradox that logically excludes the possibility of an omnipotent deity of any sort.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > When someone believes something, it's true. That is, a truth exists in the universe. That could be totally subjective and impossible to demonstrate to or share with another. That is the problem with this argument. Does God exist? Yes, if you believe. Can you prove it to others? No. All you can prove is that YOU believe and, thus, belief exists. That is all you can show to the world.
> ...



Sorry, but what you're describing could just as easily be attributed to the mind, how we are 'hard wired', a result of inborn psychology.

But the essence of the statement is that every perception and, thus, belief, is internal and subjective by definition. There is no way to prove something to someone else, just their acceptance and their convincing you the see things the same way. Even that, ultimately, it is impossible to prove as' existentially, everything really could be a dream of some sort.

Maybe even the dream of 'God'.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're supremely confused as to what "proof" means.
> ...



You're wrong, I'm not requiring physical proof. 

I'd like to see the spiritual proof. 

Just because people pray and are spiritual, does not mean that WHAT they pray to EXISTS. That is not proof of its existence, simply that they pray to it. I think your logic breaks down at the fact that you don't understand what "definitive proof" really means.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > All you have established is that spirituality exists. Proof of the existence of a deity requires far more than that. Humans are fallible and so is their spirituality. Under your "logic" that makes your God fallible too since his existence depends entirely upon imperfect humans ability to conceive of his existence. Since you raised the specter of spirituality being "proof" for the existence of other worldly entities you are claiming that demons exist too. Is that where you really want to go with this argument?
> ...



The existence of spirituality does not equate to the existence of any deity whatsoever.



> You can't have spirituality and not be spiritual.



There are spiritual Atheists. Spirituality has nothing whatsoever to do with any deities.



> I never said I could prove WHOSE god(s) exist.
> 
> Proof of the existence of a deity requires far more? Such as? I mean, I proved that man has always worshiped something, and Darwin said if a species has inherent traits they must be fundamental. Mankind has always had this fundamental behavior, therefore, there must be a purpose. Something has to first exist, in order to have purpose. If there were no God, human spirituality would have vanished in our species long ago.



Yet another false premise. The existence of spirituality might have been from a period prior to humans developing language. It might have been a way to communicate when it was impossible to express yourself in words. Your erroneous supposition that spirituality is only for the purpose of communicating with a deity is leading you astray. You are starting with the assumption that your God exists and therefore the existence of human spirituality is proof. The more likely scenario is that spirituality has been repurposed by religion as a means to promote their dogma. 



> Humans ARE fallible, and so is their spirituality. You can say that Religion is man's fallible way of understanding their spiritual maker. I don't understand how man's fallibility means God must also be fallible. I also don't understand why God has to be infallible to exist. Nor does existence demand or require belief. Black holes existed in the universe long before we believed they existed.



Peer reviewed science has proven the existence of black holes through measurements of gravitational forces. No belief required.



> Demons? Interesting twist! Of course, we can use basic physical principles and advanced logic, and figure out, if "good" exists, then "evil" must also exist. If it didn't, we'd have no idea of what "good" is. This means demon spirits do exist, and as a matter of fact, some humans worship these demon spirits, and that is their God. Again... never claimed I could prove WHOSE god exists.



Until you can divorce your personal beliefs from the facts you are going nowhere with your claim.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 30, 2013)

a thought exists.


thoughts of god exsit.

thoughts of purple dolphins who have a kingdom under the waves that rival all of mankind and are encrusted with diamonds exist too.

That does not mean there are really purple dolphin who have a kingdom under the waves that rival all of mankind and are encrusted with diamonds


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



huh?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Here is how logic works:

Can "spirituality" be explained as anything other than communication with a deity?

answer: yes, yes it can. 

Has anyone ever proven spiritual communication with a deity? (belief is not proof).

Answer: no, they haven't.

So is spirituality "definitive proof" of the existence of a deity?

Absolutely not, in any logical terms whatsoever.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



LOL... You'd like to "see" spiritual proof? To "see" something would require it to have physical presence, we can't "see" things that don't physically exist. 

If they pray to something, it spiritually must exist to them, or they wouldn't be praying to it.

My logic is not flawed, you keep trying to apply physical attributes to a spiritual entity, and demand physical proof of a spiritual entity, then claim I am confused about definitive proof.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 30, 2013)

and some little girls believe in purple dolphins


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"See" as in, "see" you explain it here in words, dingbat. 

Your logic is still poor. "Must exist to them?" 

"must exist to them" implies personal belief, not objective proof. 

Really, this is such an odd....conversation. 


So every guy who talks to an invisible friend means that there's proof of invisible people? 
Every person who has a conversation with a rock is definitive proof that rocks talk?

That logic is a failure.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> I have established that spirituality has always existed in humans, which means 'God' exists.



Not really.  Hey, I'm all for believing in God...have no problem with it.  But your logic fails here.  The existence of spirituality doesn't mean God exists, it means a belief in God exists.  Big difference.

Anyway, I also get the atheist argument.  If everything around us, everything we observe, evolves from the simple to the more complex, why should an omnipotent being, the ultimate in evolution, exist BEFORE the process of evolution began?  It makes no sense.  At least their argument is based in logic and reason.  Not so yours.

So, while I have no problems with God, I can't jump on board the 'definitive proof' bandwagon  just because people are spiritual.  People have always felt hungry when they needed to eat.  That doesn't make broccoli divine.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> The existence of spirituality doesn't mean God exists, it means a belief in God exists.  Big difference.
> 
> .



Nailed it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 30, 2013)

the purple dolphins are going to be real mad at you


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Here is how logic works:
> 
> Can "spirituality" be explained as anything other than communication with a deity?
> 
> ...



First of all, I never claimed I had definitive proof of a "deity" and you are equating "deity" with "god." Presence of spirituality means that something is being worshipped which is greater than self. I never claimed I could prove what that thing is, just that it must exist. 

*Has anyone ever proven spiritual communication with a deity? (belief is not proof).

Answer: no, they haven't.*

Again, you are attempting to mix physical proof with something that isn't physical. Belief most certainly IS proof. You can have no "proof" of anything, unless you believe it proves.

Millions of followers fully believe Moses communicated with God. His proof was the 10 commandments.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how logic works:
> ...



Belief is proof?

Ok, we're done here.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



dude your words are right here


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 30, 2013)

belief does not equal proof


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > The existence of spirituality doesn't mean God exists, it means a belief in God exists.  Big difference.
> ...



However, the existence of spirituality in humans for as long as humans have existed, means that something spiritual must exist, or we would have discarded the trait, according to Darwin.

So... *Failed* to nail!


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Incorrect. It actually could be a brain mechanism used to alleviate the fear of eternal death. 

That there are tons of explanations for spirituality mean that "definitive proof" has not been even close to met, not even close. 

Again, you're the guy who said "belief is proof."

So let's talk about logic failures. 

When the earth was believe to be flat, it was PROOF that it was flat?

Yea, wipe that off.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> belief does not equal proof



Sure it does, especially when dealing with spiritual proof. Remember, we can't apply physical proof criteria here, we're not talking about physical existence. ANY kind of proof, physical or spiritual, requires belief.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > belief does not equal proof
> ...



No, it does not. Ever, within the confines of logic. 

Belief does not equal proof. Belief could be *incorrect* belief. Belief could be *misled* belief. Belief could be *ignorant* belief. Belief could be *mentally unstable* belief. 

Belief, in no realm of existence, is equal to proof.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

This thread gives Theists a bad name, because there are plenty of theists who can carry a full on conversation following Actual logic in defense of their beliefs.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



No, it only means spirituality must exist.  People believe they're going to win the lottery, but that belief doesn't make it so.



> , or we would have discarded the trait, according to Darwin.



That's not how evolution works.  We would have only discarded spirituality if it presented an obstacle to successful breeding.  It does not.  In fact, spirituality offers comfort from the unknown and would therefore be seen as a positive trait, not one that would have been discarded.  Just because there is much humans do not understand doesn't mean the hope that some higher power knows what's going on proves the existence of that power.  It simply doesn't.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2013)

What kind of proof is required in a court of law? The belief of witnesses and prosecutors?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are correct when you say that your logic is not flawed. It is non-existent.

Fact.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Millions of followers fully believe Moses communicated with God. His proof was the 10 commandments.



I also have to argue that you don't know the difference between circumstantial and definitive.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Why do humans need a brain mechanism to alleviate the fear of eternal death? The "explanation" for spirituality is, we as humans require it. We've required this need to worship something greater than self, as long as we've been around, it hasn't changed. This is spiritual proof that something greater than self must exist, even though there is no physical evidence. 

Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...I said, "proof requires belief" and that is true. I can show you all the physical and/or spiritual proof in the world, unless you believe the proof, it isn't proving anything to you. Such is the case for spiritual proof of god. You reject the spiritual proof because you don't believe it. That doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist, just that you have chosen not to believe it.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2013)

Another fact is that Boss is not sure of his own beliefs, otherwise he would not have come up with this ridiculous premise.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...





Boss said:


> Belief most certainly IS proof



Just sit down, dude. You've lost yourself.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Millions of followers fully believe Moses communicated with God. His proof was the 10 commandments.
> ...



Oh I understand. To millions of followers, the proof is definitive. To you, it is circumstantial.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 30, 2013)

I wonder how much  purple dolphin tears are worth?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2013)

manifold is flailing like a beached whale on this thread.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Proof does not require belief, and if you knew what "proof" meant, you'd know why.

"Proof" is irrefutable, it doesn't need to be believed in because it's PROVEN. 

Holy shit. 

And you have no irrefutable evidence that "spirituality" means that "something higher exists." 

None.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 30, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> What kind of proof is required in a court of law?



Beyond a reasonable doubt.



> The belief of witnesses and prosecutors?



Eye witness testimony is not proof and no prosecutor relies solely on it.  

But, combine eye witnesses with motive, a paper trail, dna evidence, fingerprints and a defense that provides no alibi?  Then you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  You gather similar evidence in support of the existence of a deity and then we'll talk about proof.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It's not personal preference, it's logic and rationality. 

you know? 

Critical thinking. 

10 commandments are definitive proof of a conversation with God?

no, because we can logically dream up many other ways to come up with ten commandments can't we? Yes, we can. So - logic fail.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I didn't say "belief is proof" ...
> ...



You are taking what I said out of context, deliberately using part of a statement to inflict a "gotchya" on me. Sorry... you can't get away with that on The Boss! 

PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It wasnt taken out of context. You blatantly contradicted yourself. You still don't understand what proof is, let alone definitive. Sad.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2013)

What makes it important that others believe if one knows something is true?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> What makes it important that others believe if one knows something is true?



Knowledge is power. Knowledge is important. Weeding fact from fiction helps advancement. Having standards for accepting things enables clearer and more correct pictures to be painted.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."



Well, not exactly.  DNA evidence proved that a drop of blood found in OJ's Bronco was in fact his.  That didn't prove he was guilty of the murders.

Just saying.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of proof is required in a court of law?
> ...



Combine as many "proofs" as you wish, unless a jury believes your "proofs" they aren't "proven." But let's take your criteria as you presented it... Eyewitness accounts: Abraham and Moses. Motive: Mankind's inseparable connection to spirituality. A paper trail: The Holy Bible. DNA and fingerprints are physical evidence that do not apply to spiritual entities.


----------



## PratchettFan (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



I think you might want to look up the defition of "definitive".


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Yes, it was taken out of context, because I have corrected the context twice now. I do understand what proof is, you still don't. I also understand definitive, and my proof is definitive. Whether you believe it or not, that's another story.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

PratchettFan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...



I think you might want to make a point.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

PratchettFan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...



He's a bit slow, it's not worth it. Don't go into the circle. It's devoid of reason and logic.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You don't believe the definitive proof, that doesn't mean it isn't proof or isn't definitive. To those who believe the proof, there is no question it is definitive. You have to understand (critical thinking) that definitive proof does not require YOUR belief.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You don't know what definitive means.

That is the only explanation for this level of ignorance.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > PROOF... regardless of what kind... relies on BELIEF. DNA evidence PROVED that OJ was guilty, but the jury did not BELIEVE the PROOF, therefore, OJ was found "not guilty."
> ...



Nope... they found blood of the victims in the Bronco as well as on the gate. Along with a bunch of other evidence that collectively "proved" the prosecution's case. The jury believed the argument that it could have been planted, or that the samples were mishandled, and rejected the "proof" presented by the prosecution. To them, it was not proof. So "proof" is absolutely dependent on what is perceived as proof. If you don't recognize it as proof, it hasn't proven anything to you.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well then, what you should do is, go find a dictionary definition of the word and explain why I can't possibly understand it's meaning. You've said this three times, but you aren't making your case. Same for "ignorance" if you think that's what I am displaying, you need to articulate your case, then we can examine your evidence and determine whether it proves you correct.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

de·fin·i·tive  (d-fn-tv)
adj.
1.  Precisely defined or explicit.

2.  Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive. 



It's not that hard. 

The fact that other explanations (as have been provided throughout the thread) exist to explain "spirituality" means that "spirituality" is necessarily NOT definitive, NOT sufficient proof of a god or deity. 

Because definitive is conclusive, and the fact that other explanations are possible means that it is NOT conclusive. 

Or - 

That you don't understand what definitive means. 



And on and on and on. 

Logic has parameters. You redefine them with every post.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > What makes it important that others believe if one knows something is true?
> ...



When you establish the standard of demanding physical evidence to support something not of the physical world, you relegate yourself to ignorance. In order for us to understand spiritual evidence, we must first accept spiritual evidence as valid. Then we must objectively evaluate this spiritual evidence with the same clearness of thought that we evaluate physical evidence, but we can't do this unless we accept spiritual evidence as valid. You refuse to do this, therefore you remain ignorant.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

^ psycho babble and convenient excuse to skirt logic.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> de·fin·i·tive  (d-fn-tv)
> adj.
> 1.  Precisely defined or explicit.
> 
> ...



No other rational explanation exists for human spirituality, other than the belief that something greater than self exists. I never claimed definitive proof of a specific kind of god, or god of a specific incarnation. Only that something greater than self (god) must exist, or we couldn't and wouldn't exist as an inherently spiritual species. The fact that we've always existed as spiritual worshiping creatures, is definitive proof, whether you believe it or not.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > de·fin·i·tive  (d-fn-tv)
> ...



No, bec ause there are other explanations for why we are spiritual.

You ignored them, but several posters provided them.

Therefore, since there ARE other explanations for WHY we are spiritual, it cannot be LOGICALLY SAID that spirituality is definitive proof of god. But you don't follow.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2013)

And certainly talking to someone who says that "god's" existence is the only rational explanation for spirituality, and that it being a fear mechanism serving as a function of the brain is IRRATIONAL, we know where your logical uhh...compass is at.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Well thanks for making my point.  The 'jury' doesn't believe that spirituality equals proof.  You have therefore failed to prove the existence of God.

Geez, you walked right into that one!



> But let's take your criteria as you presented it... Eyewitness accounts: Abraham and Moses.



An eyewitness must testify in court, under oath, within a reasonable time frame.  Sorry, you can't use characters from Greek mythology either.



> Motive: Mankind's inseparable connection to spirituality.



Again, that only proves the existence of a believe in God, not definitive proof.



> A paper trail: The Holy Bible.



Because it's a book?  That's not a paper trail...it's a book.  Why not the Koran?  Or the Torah?  How about the Vedas?  How about modern Aesthetic books?  They're books too!

Fail on that one.



> DNA and fingerprints are physical evidence that do not apply to spiritual entities.



Convenient.  

Hey, I wish you all the best in your beliefs, but you've failed to provide anything approaching proof...which is why we call it belief.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> ^ psycho babble and convenient excuse to skirt logic.




No psychobabble, and not skirting logic. Actually, APPLYING logic, where you are defying it. You keep wanting to hold a spiritual entity to physical standards of proof. That is simply not logical. It is equivalent to a scientist demonstrating how rain is evaporated moisture accumulated in clouds which eventually become too engorged to remain suspended in the atmosphere, and thus, fall to the surface as rain...then having a Baptist say.... Gawd made the rain from his tears! If you are going to close your mind to spiritual evidence and demand physical evidence to "prove" a spiritual entity, you are really no different in terms of ignorance.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No, there have been no other explanations for spirituality, other than the belief in something greater than self, which requires our spiritual understanding. Spirituality, coupled with the very important fact that we're inherently tied to this attribute, is definitive proof that something greater than self must exist, otherwise, this attribute would have been discarded as unimportant to the species, and it hasn't.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

G.T. said:


> And certainly talking to someone who says that "god's" existence is the only rational explanation for spirituality, and that it being a fear mechanism serving as a function of the brain is IRRATIONAL, we know where your logical uhh...compass is at.



Well it's irrational because it doesn't make sense. Why would we fear eternal death? Dead people don't appear to be in distress or suffering, they tend to look quite peaceful and serene. I would think that ancient people would would look forward to such an existence, not fear it. 

But okay, so you say they began worshiping spirits because they were afraid of eternal death, but death remains eternal, no one survives it and no one avoids it. Darwin says, over time, things like this will fall to the wayside, because other things are more important to the species survival. However, what we see in mankind's history, is brutal wars, death and persecution for people who have spiritual faith, and still, the behavior remains. It certainly wasn't conducive with the survival of the species for the millions of humans killed through religious persecution. 

The RATIONAL mind has to conclude, regardless of what "god" you may believe in, SOMETHING greater than self does exist, if it didn't, we wouldn't be spiritual, we'd have no inherent need to be spiritual. The attribute would have diminished and disappeared over time, and it is stronger now than ever.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2013)

Now you see why I said at the outset that, for any human, reality/truth are what he/she perceives and chooses to believe. Perception is proof, and if that doesn't suffice, too bad, because - THAT'S ALL THERE IS.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > boss said:
> ...



If an omnipotent deity can create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent. However if the omnipotent deity cannot create an object that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent either. Therefore an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about? First of all, I never said I had definitive proof of an omnipotent god, or any other incarnation of god. I simply gave definitive proof that god exists. The fact that you can twist logic into a pretzel, is amusing, but that's about all. Can you twist balloons into animal shapes as well? 

If the omnipotent entity can't create an object that can destroy it, it has nothing to do with the entity's omnipotence, but rather, it's creative ability. Omnipotent doesn't mean ability to create anything, it means more powerful or "potent" than anything. If a "god" followed your logic protocols, we would live in a world where good and evil were unknown, nothing bad would ever happen, nothing but perfection and Nirvana would ever be experienced. We would have never developed science because nothing would need to be explained, no problems would ever arise, we would have no need for discovery or imagination.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 How ironic! 





> If the omnipotent entity can't create an object that can destroy it, it has nothing to do with the entity's omnipotence, but rather, it's creative ability. Omnipotent doesn't mean ability to create anything, it means more powerful or "potent" than anything. If a "god" followed your logic protocols, we would live in a world where good and evil were unknown, nothing bad would ever happen, nothing but perfection and Nirvana would ever be experienced. We would have never developed science because nothing would need to be explained, no problems would ever arise, we would have no need for discovery or imagination.



Perhaps you would be better off looking up the terms you don't understand before you use them in your posts.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.
> ...


No God is omnipotent!

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon


----------



## Aristotle (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is


----------



## MDiver (Apr 30, 2013)

Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all.  A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence.  Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
The bible, torah and quran were drafted by primitive, superstitious tribal peoples who could only come up with an extremely simplistice way to express how life and the universe came to be.  "It's there, so a big, invisible being must have made it."  
The ancient Greeks, Romans and Babylonians, et cetera, had numerous deities.  They are all based upon a lack of knowledge.
Scientific research is leaving less and less room for the existence of a deity.  Thus, unless some deity steps forth to all humanity and says, "here I am," I'll stick with science.


----------



## newpolitics (Apr 30, 2013)

What is spiritual proof? I have a feeling this is a meaningless notion.


----------



## newpolitics (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss, you are confusing correlation with causation. Just because, throughout Human history and prehistory, we see humans and spiritual belief together, doesn't mean that this spiritual belief in humans is caused by anything spiritual. You haven't established this causal factor, yet are trying to pass it off anyway. This is intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I have no problem with the terms I am using, you keep interjecting terms I haven't used. Again... never claimed I could give definitive proof an omnipotent god exists. You are the one who brought up omnipotence. And you did so with a logic pretzel. 

*Omnipotent*
1. (of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything
2. Having ultimate power and influence

Because something is ABLE to do anything, doesn't mean it has to do so. Having unlimited power doesn't mean it can or can't create something more omnipotent. Perhaps it can, but chooses not to, because of the logical dichotomy consequence? Perhaps it can't because if it didn't it would? Do you see how fucked up logic pretzels can be? 

Gotta love people who think they are smarter than god.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss, you are confusing correlation with causation. Just because, throughout Human history and prehistory, we see humans and spiritual belief together, doesn't mean that this spiritual belief in humans is caused by anything spiritual. You haven't established this causal factor, yet are trying to pass it off anyway. This is intellectual dishonesty.



There is causation or Darwin says we would have discarded the attribute for the sake of preserving the species. Historically, it has not been in man's best interest to hold strong religious or spiritual beliefs, they have been killed by the millions. So there must be something about it that man can't survive without, it must be fundamental to the species. 

Okay.... look.... let's try this: Imagine, for the sake of argument, that some people can recall their dreams, and some people can't. Those who can't, have no comprehension of what a dream is, because they can't recall ever having such an experience. But all through the ages, we've had these people who claim to have dreams, and these people who deny that dreams are real. Is there any physical way to prove that dreams are happening as described? I know we can measure brain wave activity and whatnot, but this doesn't actually tell us what is happening in a dream, so is there any way to prove a dream? More importantly, is there any way to prove a dream to someone who can't comprehend it? 

The point being, the human spiritual connection to god, is much like the scenario described, some people have experienced it and some haven't. It's not something that can be supported with physical evidence, it relies largely on faith and belief in the testimony of those who have experienced it. You simply can't say this experience isn't real for them or they didn't have an experience, because you lack comprehension. 

For some reason, humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. We have a need to worship something greater than self, a spiritual higher power. We are so hard-wired this way, a noted psychologist once said, if God didn't exist, mankind would have to invent Him. Ockham's Razor applied here, says the most likely explanation for mankind's intrinsic inherent connection to spirituality and worship of a higher power, (the simplest answer) is because there is one.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

MDiver said:


> Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all.  A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence.  Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
> The bible, torah and quran were drafted by primitive, superstitious tribal peoples who could only come up with an extremely simplistice way to express how life and the universe came to be.  "It's there, so a big, invisible being must have made it."
> The ancient Greeks, Romans and Babylonians, et cetera, had numerous deities.  They are all based upon a lack of knowledge.
> Scientific research is leaving less and less room for the existence of a deity.  Thus, unless some deity steps forth to all humanity and says, "here I am," I'll stick with science.



I never mentioned a "deity" or whether one exists. The thread title is Definitive Proof that God Exists.  I presented definitive spiritual proof, but you aren't willing to accept spiritual proof because you don't believe in spirituality. However, the ONLY kind of proof you can have for a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. 



newpolitics said:


> What is spiritual proof? I have a feeling this is a meaningless notion.



Well, yes it's a meaningless notion to someone who rejects spirituality, because it means you will also reject spiritual proof. That's the whole problem we are having with this debate, you don't want to allow spiritual proof, you want to demand physical proof, when physical proof simply doesn't apply to spiritual entities.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is



God doesn't have to be a "who" nor does it have to be defined, in order to exist.


----------



## newpolitics (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for your "definitive proof" that a deity exists at all.  A spritual belief in a deity, only proves that the person or persons "believe" that a deity exists, but does not prove its existence.  Extremely devout Hindus are convinced that multiple deities exist, but their devout belief only demonstrates.....a belief, not fact.
> ...



You are most certainly begging the question. "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." This is circular and gets you no where. The idea of spiritual proof presupposes a spiritual realm, which you need to demonstrate objectively in some manner. If this spiritual realm interacts with the physical realm, them we should see physical evidence. If this spiritual realm does not interact with thr physical realm in any way, then you have no justification for belief, and it is irrelevant to our lives whether a spiritual realm does exist. You cant have your cake and eat it too. As you have not adequately defined god, this is a bit ridiculous. You do need to define god, otherwise your assertion is meaningless.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MDiver said:
> ...



I disagree. Can you define what is inside a black hole? They certainly do exist, but if we didn't know they existed, physicists would say they were impossible. Why do you think spiritual interaction would leave physical proof? Does physical interaction leave spiritual proof? Billions of people over thousands of years, swear to have experienced a spiritual interaction, many of them have been put to death because they wouldn't deny this interaction. So again, there is TONS of spiritual evidence, you just don't recognize spiritual evidence in your court of judgment. 

And for the record, I didn't say "If I believed in the existence of spiritual proof, then spiritual proof would exist." I said that you reject spiritual proof and demand physical proof, when physical proof doesn't apply to spiritual entities. I have said that arguing with a person about the existence of god, who doesn't believe in spiritual proof, and refuses to accept spiritual proof, is not any different than arguing science with someone who rejects physical proof and insists on spiritual explanations. If you encountered such a person, you would quickly become frustrated, because they simply wouldn't accept your physical evidence. If they refuse to accept physical evidence, and insist that everything be explained with spiritual evidence, they are hopeless, a lost cause, you can't ever "prove" things to them, because they are unwilling to accept physical evidence. You are in the same category of mouth-breather.


----------



## Aristotle (Apr 30, 2013)

D





Boss said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Boss in order to prove God exist you must define who God is
> ...



That makes no sense. Calling God, God and proclaiming an existence of deity requires explanation.

For example if someome says "Aristotle exist." One has to define who Aristotle is before explaining a proof of Aristotle's existence." God can be anything.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 30, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dear A
1a. I totally agree with you the first step is to spell out the definitions of
what God means
1b. however, these do not have to be the same things. some people may see God as Wisdom, others as Love, or truth, goodwill, etc. but it is important to list all the things
that people equate or assign to God
2. then the next step is to try to align these terms and principles
by concept regardless of the terms and systems used
Can we get to the agreement that all these terms are pointing to the same
source or same God even if we are all using different terms or systems?
3. and then the step is to resolve any reasons for conflicts of why
alignment or resolution is not happening
normally it is finding what things people haven't resolved or forgiven or let go
such as aversion to Christianity or distrust of liberals or atheists etc. etc.
that is otherwise preveting reconciliation across these different systems
4. and lastly applying these rebuilt relations and understanding to working in diverse
teams solving real world problems that help other people to see that 
groups from different systems or backgrounds can work together to achieve
common goals, so this helps resolve issues in #3 where people can see proof and let go
knowing that we are talking about the same things but using different terms/systems.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't proclaim existence of a deity, we've been over this already. 

Someone can say, "Aristotle exists" and this is either a true statement or false statement, it does not require that Aristotle be defined. I can say Los Angeles exists, I've never been there and couldn't tell you anything about it, but I am sure it exists. You are insisting that something be defined to your satisfaction before it can be proven to exist, and that is not a prerequisite for existence or proof thereof.


----------



## newpolitics (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't need to define what is inside a black to know that the inside of a black hole exists. Something that exists is defined by its own existence. The law of identity applies here (A=A). The inside of a black is defined by the fact that it is the inside of a black hole, and this is a valid logical inference: anything that has an outside also has an inside, unless you are suggesting that logical laws breakdown inside black holes, which you would need to prove somehow. We dont know what exactly is inside a black whole, but we arent about to start making shit up to fill in knowledge gaps as you are by saying "god did it." By contrast with the existence of black holes, you nor anybody even knows if a god exists, since there is no evidence, spiritual or physical. Again, all "spiritual" evidence is (I am guessing) is subjective experience and interpretation of that experience to mean there is a supernatural deity. You are trying to get around backing up your claim by positing this other "spiritual" evidence which doesn't actually exist. You are making little sense here, and this is a pretty weak attempt at apologetics. I suggest you actually learn about logic and subscribe to a few Christian apologists who actually know how to defend Christianity a little better, because what you are doing is ridiculous.



For the record: What you are saying is,  "arguing with some who doesn't believe in god about the existence of god is frustrating." It must be, but you don't have my sympathies. List any proof, spiritual or otherwise.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.
> ...



Dear Edcynic and Boss:
Are you saying that any manifestation of God in the world is finite,
so that if God is infinite, this manifestation can't be the whole of God?


I agree it isn't the "whole" God because you are right that what is infinite
cannot fit into anything we finite humans can define or perceive.

However, we can "prove" to ourselves and each other
that we ARE representing and talking about the SAME source or God
EVEN though we ARE using "finite/limited even made-up"
concepts and terms to express aspects or meanings of this one God.

even if all our photographs and portraits we make of this God
do not do justice to the real God, we can still agree that all these
attempts are expressions pointing to or depicting at least an angle on this one God.

And the "proof" will be more like removing anything that
prevents us from seeing/believing it is the same thing.

to the point we take for granted we mean the same thing and 
DON'T NEED proof.

Like none of us has EVER proven that when you talk about your dreams
at night and I talk about mine, that these dreams really happened in our heads,
and we are talking about the same dream process. we just assume
we are talking about the same process.

We dont question, or ask for proof. we just go with it.

by the tiem we list all the things we mean by God
and which things we don't agree God means
and align the values and work things out
then we don't necessarily need proof anymore

We will show that regardless who made up which system for
describing these things, they are all pointing to or symbolising
the same process or same truth we are all reaching an understanding of.

any conflicts that would otherwise prevent these systmes
from aligning would get resolved inthe process of
proving what is and what is not consistent with each other.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > D
> ...



Dear Boss: if you are going to prove it to THAT PERSON
then it does help to align it with some term or concept that has meaning to THAT PERSON.

for example, what if you are trying to prove that the laws of gravity
affect THAT PERSON.

what if the person does not know what you mean by gravity.
So the first step is to demonstrate something in that person's experience
that would show them what gravity is.

Same with God.

If people believe in truth, love or good will existing.
like the concept of universal good will for all people as an abstract ideal.
that is the equivalent of believing in God's will, some greater good for all humanity.

if people believe in justice, that is
the equivlanet of believing in jesus or divine justice on some abstract level.

So the discussion becomes at what points do we agree on these concepts of truth and justice, how to realize them, and how to solve problems in the process
so we can achieve or establish truth and justice for all people to bring peace on earth
if this is the meaning of salvation and heaven.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 30, 2013)

RE: Christ Jesus as representing the spirit of Restorative Justice

Hi Newpolitics: regarding how to explain Christianity to secular gentiles under natural laws,
are you okay with the explanation that the point of the Bible is to move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law (as in the Old Testament)
* to *restorative justice* by the spirit of the law (as in the New Testament)
and this process of reaching spiritual maturity to establish justice and peace
for all humanity requires "forgiveness and correction" so all people join in agreeing on truth, where building a consensus sets us free from division strife and suffering by reaching unified understanding by conscience. and this is what it means for all people to become "one in Christ," to reach such an agreement "by conscience," by free will because we agree to forgive all previous conflicts that prevented us from reaching agreement in the past.
so we free our minds to RECEIVE peace by RECEIVING a higher understanding, that we couldn't previously while we were divided by unforgiven conflicts.

are you okay discussing this explanation in secular terms?

if you don't relate to explanations using church laws where people were first
given the letter of the law, this led to corruption and wars, and so there had
to be massive reform so the spirit of the laws is renewed to end the abuses;
are you more comfortable using secular laws to show this same pattern
where the written laws are given first, that gets corrupted by greed and 
political abuses for power, and the process is to reform the whole system
and go back to the original spirit of the laws to restore justice peace and order.

so this is the same process of justice symbolized in the Bible for all humanity.
and each person goes through this, and each nation/culture, but collectively
for all humanity this return of justice is what Jesus represents to bring peace to all.



newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Emily, while I always appreciate your benevolent and patient tone in these often hostile discussions, I do not find your exegesis of the New Testament to be a convicting argument for god, as you are presupposing that god exists and inspired the bible.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



What? You can say something exists without defining it? How can that be? You just got through explaining to me that this is not possible and makes no sense to you. Now you are saying, with black holes, it's different. I don't need to define "god" to know that god exists or prove that god exists. Thanks for conceding the point. 



> Something that exists is defined by its own existence.



Like GOD! 
Thanks again for making my point! Two in a row! 



> The law of identity applies here (A=A). The inside of a black is defined by the fact that it is the inside of a black hole, and this is a valid logical inference: anything that has an outside also has an inside, unless you are suggesting that logical laws breakdown inside black holes, which you would need to prove somehow.



Perhaps the black hole is a portal to God? 

A=A... God=God.... black hole inside = black hole inside.  Some things we can explain, some things we can't. Some things we've thought have been proven wrong, it happens frequently. Not everything is known, it is sheer human arrogance that we constantly think as if we already know all there is to know, and nothing will ever come along to change what we believe. 



> We dont know what exactly is inside a black whole, but we arent about to start making shit up to fill in knowledge gaps as you are by saying "god did it."



Seems to be a problem at this board with people misquoting me. Grossly! Where have I proclaimed that "god did it?"  My thread is about definitive proof that god exists. This is the only argument I have made here. I have not claimed god was omnipotent, or a deity, or that god "did" anything. Only that there is definitive proof god exists. I didn't make shit up, I presented clear concise facts that are irrefutable. It is illogical to presume belief in god is "to fill knowledge gaps" because if that were true, we could expect rapid decline in human spirituality over the past 500 years, with the advent of unprecedented human knowledge, and that is not what we see. Observing the species as diligent scientists, we see that spiritual behavior is largely unchanged in humans. A relatively small percentage of humans report being "Nihilists," the rest have some kind of belief in something greater than self. 



> By contrast with the existence of black holes, *you nor anybody even knows if a god exists, since there is no evidence, spiritual or physical.* Again, all "spiritual" evidence is (I am guessing) is subjective experience and interpretation of that experience to mean there is a supernatural deity. You are trying to get around backing up your claim by positing this other "spiritual" evidence which doesn't actually exist. You are making little sense here, and this is a pretty weak attempt at apologetics. I suggest you actually learn about logic and subscribe to a few Christian apologists who actually know how to defend Christianity a little better, because what you are doing is ridiculous.



You're sputtering and stammering around here. We've already established it is illogical to demand physical evidence of something spiritual. And you must be willing to accept spiritual evidence to definitively prove a spiritual entity. There are indeed, BILLIONS of people through milleniums, who swore to a spiritual connection. Sworn testimony, from BILLIONS and BILLIONS. 

And let me make this perfectly clear, NOTHING in this thread or my argument, pertains to Christianity or defending of ANY religious belief. Religious beliefs are a different topic, and have no place in a case for whether god exists, except to support the obvious. Humans are intrinsically spiritual. BECAUSE god exists, humans have (in their imperfect way) attempted to construct understandings of god, which is called "religion." Whether they are right or wrong about god, or if they even comprehend god, is beside the point of whether god exists. God can exist without being the Christian incarnation. 



> For the record: What you are saying is,  "arguing with some who doesn't believe in god about the existence of god is frustrating." It must be, but you don't have my sympathies. List any proof, spiritual or otherwise.



It is frustrating, imagine if you were arguing science with someone who rejects all physical evidence in favor of spiritual evidence? If they are just not willing to look at physical evidence, there is nothing you can do, they will remain ignorant. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence, and YES, I have already presented it several times. There are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of humans who believed in something greater than self, and had a connection to something spiritual, swore by it, died for it, fought wars over it, were persecuted for thousands of years over. There have been people who reported miracles through meditation and prayer. People who have been cured from terminal illness. Very important people in history who claim to have been led by god to do what they did, people accomplishing impossible feats an attributing it to the power of god. And this sort of thing has been going on since the very first human civilizations. 

The SPIRITUAL evidence is somewhat overwhelming. The problem is, you aren't willing to look at spiritual evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



Gravity exists whether the person understands what gravity is. As a matter of fact, can you explain precisely what gravity is? Because science has difficulty with this, they once believed it was connected to mass, density, weight... but it seems to not follow this theory all the time. But we know gravity does exist, even though we can't fully explain how it works. 



> Same with God.



It is kind of the same, but God is not a physical property, it is a spiritual entity. It's existence can be proven to those who accept spiritual evidence, because the evidence is overwhelming and definitive. That was the whole point of the thread. 



> If people believe in truth, love or good will existing.
> like the concept of universal good will for all people as an abstract ideal.
> that is the equivalent of believing in God's will, some greater good for all humanity.
> 
> ...



I don't know about all of that, I didn't claim to be able to definitively prove a judgemental god or one that is an abstract ideal or fake blow-up doll you use to promote your ideal. All of that falls under "religious" belief, and I have only presented the argument in a "spiritual" sense. Many people RUSH to assume these are the same, that's why I keep getting hit with the misquotes about "deities" and "omnipotence" and "goddidits" and no one can refute what I've actually said, or the points I made.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

> Dear Edcynic and Boss:
> Are you saying that any manifestation of God in the world is finite,
> so that if God is infinite, this manifestation can't be the whole of God?



I read your post, and I think you are not far off from what I am saying in the OP. Whether God or god or Allah... whatever... is finite or infinite, doesn't matter with regard to existence or presence. The case I presented relies on several key points: 

1. Spiritual entities can't be supported with physical evidence, we must acknowledge spiritual evidence. 
2. Humans have the unique inherent and inseparable trait of spirituality and worship, and always have.
3. Darwin's own evolution theory says inherent traits are present because they are important, discarded if they are not. (Natural Selection)
4. BILLIONS of humans have endured suffering and death to profess belief in a spiritual connection. 
5. Billions and billions, through millenniums, have attested to the powers of something greater than self.

This is definitive proof that god exists. Whose God? What God? ...Not part of the argument.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

You are still begging the question in trying to smuggle in this notion of "spiritual evidence." What is spiritual evidence? Please define it.

The reason you need to define god, is because he does not exist nor has any empirically observable effects. You seem to be confusing a priori and a posteriori knowledge when you complain about god needing a definition but black holes not needing a definition. Black holes exist, independent of our minds. Our defining them doesn't change what they are. They exist, as whatever they are. God would not exist, in the conventional sense, therefore nothing about god could be known, including his very "existence." Again trying to draw an analogy to anything that actually exists is invalid. You are making an existential claim, yet have no evidence of any kind, and are refusing to offer any definitions because you think god is so self-evident. This is supremely arrogant.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Further, you seem to have come to this determination that atheists are dolts and that you don't actually need to provide proof for your claims about gods existence. You am just make a claim, and that is evidence enough. This is a logical fallacy called  proof by assertion. You assert something's existence, and consider that proof. I can do that too. There is a supreme god above your god, that created your god, and beat him when he was little. That is why your god is such an asshole. There, see? EVIDENCE!!


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> Gravity exists whether the person understands what gravity is. As a matter of fact, can you explain precisely what gravity is?


We know gravity, energy, etc., exist because they can be measured. Can you measure God?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.



Hold on... I haven't used black holes as an analogy to God. Black holes are an example of something we can't define what is inside, but we know they exist. This was in response the argument that we can't prove existence without defining something first. That argument was debunked with the example of the black hole. 

I don't know what you mean by "laws of logic apply to things that actually exist" because it sounds like we are again trying to mix physical existence with spiritual existence, and I covered this in the OP. To "exist" in a physical sense, is not possible for a spiritual entity, or it would be a physical entity, by it's existence. So we have to constantly remember this as we are evaluating whether god "exists." 

A more suitable thing to use as an analogy to God, would be Love.  Do you Love someone? Can you prove that you do to me? What if I tell you that your love is a figment of your imagination, and that you imagine this because you are afraid of dying alone? Is there any way to prove me wrong? You see.... this is the confrontation faced when presenting a case for existence of god. Spiritual evidence is dismissed, physical evidence is demanded, and the whole idea is ridiculed or explained away arrogantly by people who refuse to look at the spiritual evidence, and make an informed evaluation.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity exists whether the person understands what gravity is. As a matter of fact, can you explain precisely what gravity is?
> ...



Spiritually?


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You are acting as if god is as observable as a black hole. You are contradicting yourself by doing this because you admitted that no physical evidence for god exists, so this can't be the case. A black hole can be observed by anyone with the proper equipment, by observing its effects on the surrounding space by its immense gravity (gravitational lensing). Black holes were postulated mathematically by Einstein and later found to exist, and are now known to be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Therefore, using black holes as an analogy for god is completely invalid. God is nowhere to be seen. The laws of logic apply to things that actually exist. You can't use the law of identity to prove gods existence. That is just dumb.
> ...



Okay, let me get this straight, you are trying to use black holes to prove a point about defining or not defining god, and this isn't an argument from analogy? You are contradicting yourself again. Either you are stupid, or intellectually dishonest. Clearly you don't know what an analogy is. You can't invoke black holes into your argument for god and have it not be an analogy.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

I figured out your flaw . Definitions only apply to a priori or analytic truths. A posteriori truths do need definition, because they exist independent of the mind. Black holes exist independent of us (the same can not be said for god) Therefore, the notion of defining them is a non-sequitur when assessing their characteristics empirically. We discover their nature empirically, we don't decide what their nature will be by defining them, and then call that truth. This would be solopsism. If you agree that there is a mind independent  reality, then your position is untenable.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Further, you seem to have come to this determination that *atheists are dolts* and that you don't actually need to provide proof for your claims about gods existence.



Where did I call Atheists dolts? I think this is funny because some people have accused me of being atheistic in my beliefs. You see, I don't subscribe to organized religions. 

The God-haters are constantly chortling for "physical proof" of a spiritual entity. I've said that's dumb, illogical as hell, as a matter of fact. But I presented evidence to prove definitively that god exists in the OP. Did you read it? 



> You am just make a claim, and that is evidence enough.



But I didn't just make a claim, I presented a case, it's only 6 paragraphs or so, it's not a hard read. 



> This is a logical fallacy called  proof by assertion.



"This?" As in, what YOU are doing right now? Because, I might agree there! Again... the OP is 6 paragraphs, go read it real quick, so you won't make a further jackass out of yourself. I made the case, I presented my argument.  



> That is why your god is such an asshole. There, see? EVIDENCE!!



Where have I mentioned "MY" god?


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

I read the OP. It is rife with logical fallacy. For example: do thoughts exist? Does love exist? Yes. Thoughts occur objectively and measurably as electrical currents in the brain. Love is detectable by the presence of the drug oxitocin in the brain. You are confusing subjective reality or phenomenological experience with objective reality. This is also why you feel safe in positing the existence of something called "spiritual evidence." In reality, spiritual evidence is simply ones subjective reasons for belief. They may have things they consider evidence. This is called anecdotal evidence. You have simply relabeled it "spiritual evidence."


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Nope... that's where you are wrong. Yes, I know your system is in shock, you probably aren't told you are wrong often, but you have not correctly interpreted why black holes were introduced by me in this thread. This makes multiple and numerous errors you've made in the past several posts, with regard to what I have said or what my arguments have been. You've got a lot of nerve to complain of intellectual dishonesty. 

*Black holes are an example of something we can't define what is inside, but we know they exist.*
_*DOES NOT EQUAL*_
*...trying to use black holes to prove a point about defining or not defining god*

The argument black holes refuted has nothing to do with god, and is about logic. Things do NOT have to be defined in order to exist or be proven to exist. If this logic applies for arguments about the insides of a black hole, it applies for arguments regarding spiritual entities. That's not, in any way, a comparison of God and black holes, analogous or otherwise.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Yeah. You really shouldn't be talking about logic. You simply don't know what an argument from analogy is, because you are making one. You are saying: " the insides of black holes can not be defined, yet we still believe the insides of black holes exists. Therefore, we can likewise say then that god does not need to be defined, even though I know he exists."

Is this not your point in invoking black holes? This is the use of analogy. You are using something other than god to make a point about god. I am not going to type this again. Look it up if you must.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

I haven't made any errors about what you are saying. You simply don't have the self awareness to understand what it is you are doing, logically, and consequently, are contradicting yourself all over the place.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> I read the OP. It is rife with logical fallacy. For example: do thoughts exist? Does love exist? Yes. Thoughts occur objectively and measurably as electrical currents in the brain. Love is detectable by the presence of the drug oxitocin in the brain. You are confusing subjective reality or phenomenological experience with objective reality. This is also why you feel safe in positing the existence of something called "spiritual evidence." In reality, spiritual evidence is simply ones subjective reasons for belief. They may have things they consider evidence. This is called anecdotal evidence. You have simply relabeled it "spiritual evidence."



What the living hell is an "illogical fallacy?" Electrical currents don't 'prove' anything, with regard to a thought. Oxitocin can be present in the brain for MANY reasons, so they also do not 'prove' anything. 

I feel comfortable posting spiritual evidence because we are debating the existence of a spiritual entity, and that's the type evidence you have to use, logically speaking. 

You dismiss spiritual evidence as a bunch of hooey and nonsense, the same as some religious freak might dismiss evolution the same way. And it's because you refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. At the same time.... you KEEP wanting to push for and expect PHYSICAL evidence, it's the ONLY thing you will accept. Well.... spiritual entities can't provide physical evidence or they would be physical entities. So we have a problem.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > I read the OP. It is rife with logical fallacy. For example: do thoughts exist? Does love exist? Yes. Thoughts occur objectively and measurably as electrical currents in the brain. Love is detectable by the presence of the drug oxitocin in the brain. You are confusing subjective reality or phenomenological experience with objective reality. This is also why you feel safe in positing the existence of something called "spiritual evidence." In reality, spiritual evidence is simply ones subjective reasons for belief. They may have things they consider evidence. This is called anecdotal evidence. You have simply relabeled it "spiritual evidence."
> ...



Where do you see "illogical fallacy?" 

Electrical currents certainly do prove something, especially when correlated with specific brain activity and mapped by an fMRI machine. The same with Oxytocin levels rising when people experience feelings of love. Your level of skepticism here is highly inconsistent with your gullibility in regards to a concept like god. Again, please define god. Appealing to black holes won't save you from having to define god, as I've already proven. This is not a dificult question. Are you a Christian? A pantheist? A deist? A panentheist? There are many different definitions for god. Pick one.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Why do you have to use spiritual evidence for a spiritual entry? You haven't shown this be true, nor is this logical as you so arrogantly claim. This is Another proof by assertion. I've already mentioned the logical hole you are in concerning evidence for god. If god does interact with the physical realm in any way, then it is a question of physical evidence. If he doesn't, then his existence is irrelevant.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Yeah. You really shouldn't be talking about logic. You simply don't know what an argument from analogy is, because you are making one. You are saying: " the insides of black holes can not be defined, yet we still believe the insides of black holes exists. Therefore, we can likewise say then that god does not need to be defined, even though I know he exists."
> 
> Is this not your point in invoking black holes? This is the use of analogy. You are using something other than god to make a point about god. I am not going to type this again. Look it up if you must.





newpolitics said:


> I haven't made any errors about what you are saying. You simply don't have the self awareness to understand what it is you are doing, logically, and consequently, are contradicting yourself all over the place.



What is your dysfunctional problem (or acronym) which keeps you from posting all of your thoughts in a single post, why do you keep rapid-firing retorts? How about stop posting the same superfluous regurgitation, and debate the points I made.... or shut the fuck up and move along? 

Nothing I have actually SAID is a contradiction. I have no idea about what you are imagining me to say, I'm probably contradicting myself like crazy inside your mind, based on how badly you've misquoted me to this point. But the fact that you haven't posted specifics, and you continue to fire off posts like a cat covering a turd in a litter box, tells me your game is to bury the thread in superfluous nonsense and demagoguery, and AVOID the debate. 

I'm satisfied with the PWNAGE!


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Why do you have to use spiritual evidence for a spiritual entry? You haven't shown this be true, nor is this logical as you so arrogantly claim. This is Another proof by assertion. I've already mentioned the logical hole you are in concerning evidence for god. If god does interact with the physical realm in any way, then it is a question of physical evidence. If he doesn't, then his existence is irrelevant.



Spiritual ENTITY, not "entry." 

Well... because, this is logic and how it works. Physical things, stuff in our physical universe, relies on physical principles and requires physical evidence to prove existence in a physical sense. Spiritual entities do not have physical presence or existence. If they did, they would be physical entities, and we could apply physical principles and demand physical proof. 

Since spiritual entities are spiritual in nature, we have to examine spiritual evidence and not physical, when objectively evaluating existence in a spiritual sense. It's completely illogical and irrational to try and apply, or demand, physical evidence to spiritual entities. 

It's also illogical to expect physical evidence of spiritual interaction. I addressed this when you posted it the first time, but you've apparently not read the post. Does physical interaction produce spiritual evidence?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Electrical currents certainly do prove something, especially when correlated with specific brain activity and mapped by an fMRI machine.



No they don't. A POTATO can produce an electrical current. No machine exists that can tell what a person is thinking. Nothing can measure what took place in the mind of Mozart or Rembrandt or DeVinci. You have presented proof that the brain has electronic reactions and impulses, and these occur when the brain is thinking. You have not proven any actual thought exists, nor have you defined it. 



> The same with Oxytocin levels rising when people experience feelings of love.



Or any number of other feelings people experience, that's the part you are leaving out. You've proven the brain produces oxytocin depending on emotional circumstance, that doesn't prove love, nor does it define it. 



> Your level of skepticism here is highly inconsistent with your gullibility in regards to a concept like god.



But I am not gullible. I presented a case you can't refute. You're trying very hard, but failing. Mostly because you keep veering away from the argument to raise superfluous points. 



> Again, please define god. Appealing to black holes won't save you from having to define god, as I've already proven. This is not a dificult question. Are you a Christian? A pantheist? A deist? A panentheist? There are many different definitions for god. Pick one.



I do not have to define god to prove that god exists. I don't have to "pick" a god to prove god exists. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, you just refuse to accept it, so you demand that I "define" something, so that you can then attack that. I am not here to argue for Christians or any other religion, I believe religion is a manifestation of mankind who grapples with understanding of something beyond human comprehension. It is a part of my evidence that god must exist, because look at all the various people god inspires? This has been going on for all of mankind's history, and it can't simply be tossed aside as unimportant. Unless you are a moron who refuses to accept spiritual evidence, while clamoring for physical proof of something not physical.


----------



## editec (May 1, 2013)

> I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic.



You are puzzzled that people lack basic comprehension and logical thinking ability?

Really?

No you're not really surprised by that.

Not unless you were born yesterday.

Remember, half the people on earth are less intelligent that the norm.

And the normal level of intelligence isn't exactly well prepared to think logically, either.


----------



## amrchaos (May 1, 2013)

If we are talking about spirituality existing as a concept---then I don't have a problem.

On the other hand, when you start to relate the spiritual with energy, I have to ask what do you mean by "Energy".  In science, energy  can be measured.  On the other hand, many of these spirituals being, which many believers tend to suggest are composed of energy, cannot be measured.  Thus I do not think that energy in the spiritual sense is the same as energy in the physical sense.

Therefore I do find the op arguments a little vague.  In fact I believe there is a bit of bait and switch on the meaning of definitions at play.


----------



## Aristotle (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > D
> ...




You titled the thread "definitive proof that God exist..." I am asking you who is God?


----------



## amrchaos (May 1, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



God is apparently a concept--not a person or living entity as far as the logic on this board seems to be going.


----------



## Aristotle (May 1, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Hmm I see


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> When someone believes something, it's true. That is, a truth exists in the universe. That could be totally subjective and impossible to demonstrate to or share with another. That is the problem with this argument. Does God exist? Yes, if you believe. Can you prove it to others? No. All you can prove is that YOU believe and, thus, belief exists. That is all you can show to the world.



Dear T4:
We can prove that all these individual paths align with each other
and point to the same laws and process universal to all humanity.

Some of the proof process is backwards.
by asserting there is unity and universality,
then as objections come up where people explain 'why they don't believe'
we are talking about the same God or universal laws,
then we REMOVE or resolve those objections preventing alignment.
There are only a finite number or patterns of objections; so
as those are removed (or we show consistently there is a pattern
or method to remove these which can be replicated), then
we can show there is a proof process that will work to reconcile and align
the different views no matter how diverse or individualized they are.

The part that may follow the stesps of a traditional proof
is proving through medical science that the
demonic energies exist and can be measured
that make people mentally sick, and that the
prayers in Christ Jesus remove these negative
"viral" blockages and people's brains return to normal patterns
of thought and function. I believe that part can be
proven through traditional science now that we have
technology to measure brain waves and emotional responses
and compare normal brain function to dysfunction in the mentally or criminally ill mind.

For most people, the reason they don't believe is they see too many
people in conflict, so they lose faith an agreement can be reached.
as we forgive and resovle issues, and people see that this process
can be done in an orderly, replicable way, then more people may
be openminded to a consensus being reachable over time.

to prove it physically, we'd have to achieve this consensus in real world
application, and I believe that will happen. because human nature and conscience
is geared to seek consistency for security peace and happiness,
and avoids conflict and suffering out of fear of instability and loss of control.

So in order to find peace by nature of our consciences, people tend toward reconciliation
in order to defend their own freedom beliefs and security.

it's just that the fear of conflict and oppression, that people will not comply
overrides the good that would be achieved; the fear of change and work involved
outweighs any hope of actually succeeding. so this is where it takes a combination
of faith in forgiveness and correction in the human conscience,
and demonstrated proof that the process is working to overcome those obstacles as we go.

if this is done right, the process builds on itself.
people who are able to reconcile across religious differences,
show others how they did so, and other pepole try it and find
that this works. So the proof grows and the faith grows
until we can prove this both as a process and through the end results.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 1, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> a thought exists.
> 
> 
> thoughts of god exsit.
> ...



purple dolphins and god exist in the mind


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God?


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

Dear Boss: Even if we do not NEED to define something in order to prove or even believe it exists; for the sake of making sure we are agreeing what we are trying to prove, it helps to agree on what that thing is, and what it is not.

For example, Boss, I know you've seen this before if I have:
where people define God to be something inherently contrary, such as
defining God to be a judgmental punitive authority to be feared as sending people to hell.

So it helps to make sure we do NOT define God to be something like that.
If we are going to prove we all believe in things that come from the same God,
whether or not we define it the same, we can at least make sure it is consistent
among the people discussing God and what it means.

We don't have to agree in full. the Buddhists who seek Wisdom and Compassion for all things in Creation may not personify God at all. But Wisdom can be seen as coming from God. People who see God in terms of love, this is not the same as God as Wisdom.
Love and Wisdom are not the same at all. But we can agree that given those terms and attributes, the proof would involve showing that people agree these come from the same God, whether you personify God or see all laws of the universe and creation as God.



Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Electrical currents certainly do prove something, especially when correlated with specific brain activity and mapped by an fMRI machine.
> ...


----------



## amrchaos (May 1, 2013)

Emily does have a point.


If someone believed that god is the Devil  in disguise, what would that say about their theology and morality?  Changing fundemental concepts (such as God in religion) changes the meaning of truth and morality in that religion.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

the difference between purple dolphins and God existing in the mind,
is "what they represent." where one represents a more universal concept that other people
believe in (even if this is represented differently per person especially
for nontheists who do not personify God) and can even be shown to have a positive constructive use,
and one is a concept that other people do not have a belief in or an equivalent of,
and can even be shown not to have as much practical use in a demonstratable way as the other.

Note: instead of comparing iwth purple dolphins, i find it more insightful
to compare people's views or beliefs and concepts about JUSTICE.
Discussing and resolving issues about why there is not equal justice in teh world,
brings up and addresses the same issues that prevent people from believing there is one God.

Even if pepole do not believe in God as personified being,
they normally have some other equivalent that plays the relatively same role
in their system of defining or understanding the world and relations or laws in it.

what is missing is people do not believe that all people's beliefs
are pointing to the same God. they don't believe these can be reconciled.

so the proof is either showing that these different beliefs can be reconciled,
or there is at least a consistent process of reconciliation which can be replicated universally, where any objection or conflict blocking alignmnet can be shown to 
come from certain factors that can be resolved and removed over time, and
any failure to reconcile 'correlates' with these factors being present so they follow
a set pattern, both the cases of reconciliation and the cases where it fails.



Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > a thought exists.
> ...



Dear TM: the dreams we have at night exist in our minds only.
why is it that when people say they have dreams, we believe them
and understand this is a "universal process" even though the dreams we
have are different and no one can see them but us.

the proof of God is similar, where even though each person has unique
beliefs, we will come to understand this is a universal process.
we will not compete or argue that one person's dreams are
any more or less real than the one's in someone else's mind.


----------



## amrchaos (May 1, 2013)

I don't think proving "god" as a concept is the issue  with atheists

It is the personification of god as living entity is the point of contention with atheists such as TM.


Depending on which perspective you choose, the title of the thread seems misleading.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. You really shouldn't be talking about logic. You simply don't know what an argument from analogy is, because you are making one. You are saying: " the insides of black holes can not be defined, yet we still believe the insides of black holes exists. Therefore, we can likewise say then that god does not need to be defined, even though I know he exists."
> ...



You are hopeless. I pointed out several contradictions and now you want me to dig them back up because you can't read, and now your throwing insults around? Holy cow. You can't provide basic facts to back up your gigantic claim, and yet you expect us all to just believe you. You claimed you had definitive proof for god, and then in your OP said this proof was only available to those who already believe in god (those able to see "spiritual evidence"- whatever the fuck that means). This is question begging. You are employing circular logic but dont want to admit to it. "If i believed in god, then id believe in god." This is essentiallt what you are telling everyone. you deny it, but that is the only truth here. Stop being a little bitch and start defining what it is you are proposing to exist.

I have refuted every single one of your ridiculous points. Stop acting like I'm not confronting your enormous amount of bullshit. There is just so much of it, its tough to comprehend how anyone could be so wrong and yet think they are so right.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You've not refuted anything, you've chortled... you're a very good chortler. I see where you've tried to derail the thread and debate the unrelated, you're good at that too. And you have sprinkled in a good helping of ridicule and ad homs, for good measure. Repeatedly, you have attempted to claim I have said things that I never said. What you HAVEN'T done, is address my points made in the OP and stay on topic. 

There is no circular logic to this. Just as we make determinations and evaluations of physical things in a physical world with physical evidence, we have to do the same with spiritual things, using spiritual evidence. You reject spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spirituality. You refuse to try and comprehend anything other than the physical world you understand, just as some spiritual nut may cling to spiritual belief over science. You've put yourself in the same arena of closed-mindedness, by refusing to acknowledge or accept spiritual proof. 

And I have explained spiritual evidence, no need to keep adding (whatever that means) each time you type it. This is another attempt by you, to pretend I haven't articulated something. What you need to do, it seems, is go back and read the thread again. Then copy and paste the things you want to contest and present your case, we'll proceed from there. If you've decided to NOT debate, and just try to fill the thread up with whining and chortling, that's fine too... but we're going to be honest about what you're doing.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Emily, while I always appreciate your benevolent and patient tone in these often hostile discussions, I do not find your exegesis of the New Testament to be a convicting argument for god, as you are presupposing that god exists and inspired the bible.



Hi Newpolitics:
No, you don't have to believe that either God exists
or that the Bible was inspired by this God

to support or believe in an interpretation of the
Old and New Testament, in a way that represents humanity universally,
such as showing the historical pattern of moving
from legalistic retributive justice (which brings death and war) to
restorative justice by the spirit of the laws (that brings peace and harmony)
by forgiveness and correction that breaks the cycles of war and retribution
and brings about reform for lasting peace and justice.

You can believe the world and human nature is whatever it is,
with or without a God inspiring or creating it,
and the interpretation of the Bible can still mean:

to warn people not to live by greed and material desire for political control
which corrupts laws and society
but to live by the spirit of love truth justice peace etc.
that includes all humanity and does not discriminate by politics
and allows relations and justice to be restored for law and order.

the point does not have to be about God per se at all,
it is about agreeing what is the universal meaning
or message that by definition must apply to all humanity to be universal, right?

so what is the meaning that we can all agree on?
theists or nontheists alike?
if we can all agree on Constitutional laws as
representing inalienable and self-evident principles
that apply to all human nature, why not with other laws
that are claimed to have universal import? so what is it?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...




And I am telling you, I don't need to define god. Things can and do exist, which have not been defined and may never be defined. Defining or explaining the characteristics of something, is not necessary to prove it exists. My guess is, you want me to define God so that you can then turn the debate into an attack on that. I never claimed I could prove existence of a specific incarnation of god. 

I don't know that god is a "who" or that any human definition could ever suffice, especially to someone who rejects spirituality and doesn't believe in god. Let's just say for clarity sake, when I use the word "god" I am referring to the spiritual entity humans worship as something greater than self. That's really all the definition needed in this debate.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Electrical currents certainly do prove something, especially when correlated with specific brain activity and mapped by an fMRI machine.
> ...




You are really dense. Seriously. I can't debate this level of idiocy. I'm done deconstructing your myriad logical fallacies and bad analogies, but I will restate that because you are making an existential claim, you need to define it. I will make an ANALOGY (watch and learn). This is what you are doing:

"Hey. I have this thing in my garage...."

"What is it?"

"I don't need to define it."

"Okay. Can you tell me anything about it?"

"I don't need to. Can you define the inside of a black hole? No. Therefore I don't need to define this thing in my garage. You should just believe me because I say it exists."

"That's a bad analogy. We know that black holes exist. I have no idea what it is you are claiming is in your garage. It could be anything."

"I'm not using an analogy. I'm just using something else to make an argument about what's it in my garage."

"..."

"There is tons of evidence! It Is definitive proof!"

"Show it to me"

"You can't see it because you don't believe it exists."

"Why should I believe this evidence exists?"

"Because without, there is no evidence for what's in my garage."

"Just show me the evidence!"

"It's not physical."

"What is it?"

"It's spiritual."

What does that means?"

"It's not physical."

"So, in order for me to believe that there is something in your garage that you claim, which I can't detect with any I my five sense, I need to believe in this evidence which neither can be detected with any Of my five senses?"

"Correct!"

(Walks into oncoming traffic)


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

By not defining god, you aren't claiming anything. This thread is utterly pointless. You could be claiming the existence of a giant Bloo-Bloo in outer space for all we know. What's a Bloo-Bloo? I don't need to define it. It exists.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> I don't think proving "god" as a concept is the issue  with atheists
> 
> It is the personification of god as living entity is the point of contention with atheists such as TM.
> 
> ...



yes, a lot of what I run into is
people either not believing in how the Christian God is taught,
or not believing that Muslims/Christian believe in the same God,
much less atheists who don't even personify God at all.

my bf came from an agnostic background who decided there is
a God and not just intelligent design but a source of all things,
but he does not believe this is in line with whatever Christians teach.

so a lot of it is that.
And most of the work is people either forgiving or resolving their past conflicts
or misperceptions so we can move toward an approach to God
that allows for all these differences without contradiction.

As soon as you bring up this idea of reconciliation and universality,
people think you mean making everyone's beliefs the same
so that fear has to be addressed first. Then they tend to bring up things like "how are you going to
get Muslims and Christians to agree if they are killing each other in war,"
and "liberals and conservatives can't even agree when they are under the same
laws and don't agree how to interpret or apply them," etc. 
or the "other people are the problem" argument. I get this a lot.
Where people say I am the exception, they can reconcile with me, but
those "other people" aren't going to go along with it.

the key is forgiveness so corrections can be made.
so there is a process of reconciliation involved where people respond if they see how it works first, by experiencing it themselves and finding out it doesn't force them to convert but helps them to be more consistent with the principles they already believe in, before
they see the same process can work for others.

it is like proving the process works by
jumping in and using it to show how it works.

At some point, the patterns can likely be documented by statistics
to show that people across different views and groups follow the
same process, and it's not dependent on any one set of beliefs.
So the common factor that either allows or blocks reconciliation
is forgiveness or unforgiveness, which doesn't even have to be proven
as a cause, but can be shown as a "correlating factor" and that's good
enough to show a consistent pattern of why the process succeeds or fails.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Boss: Even if we do not NEED to define something in order to prove or even believe it exists; for the sake of making sure we are agreeing what we are trying to prove, it helps to agree on what that thing is, and what it is not.



No it doesn't help. What a definition of god does, is open the door for criticism and argument over the definition. The God-haters desperately want me to give a definition of god, so they can then attack my definition. Reason being, they can't refute the points in the OP. 

I keep reading your posts, and while I think it's a nice thought that you want us all to come together and agree on a universal definition of god, that's not going to happen in this world. We can't mold and shape god into whatever we want god to be... god isn't playdough. Spiritual understanding of god is not dependent on what the guy next to you thinks or agrees with. The spiritual relationship with god is personal and individual, and should be respected as such. There is no need for "defining" god, that's where we get into trouble.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> By not defining god, you aren't claiming anything. This thread is utterly pointless. You could be claiming the existence of a giant Bloo-Bloo in outer space for all we know. What's a Bloo-Bloo? I don't need to define it. It exists.



Dear NP I agree with you the first step is to define what is meant by God.

I posted a general suggestion earlier, are you okay with that description?


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

"You reject spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spirituality."

Explain to me how this isn't circular.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> By not defining god, you aren't claiming anything. This thread is utterly pointless. You could be claiming the existence of a giant Bloo-Bloo in outer space for all we know. What's a Bloo-Bloo? I don't need to define it. It exists.



Again, the thread OP points out numerous things in a total of about six paragraphs, it's not a hard read. It's more than just proclaiming god exists. In fact, that is only the title of the thread, the OP is where that case is made, any you continue to NOT post what you have problems with or what you want to challenge from that, and you continue to insist that I have merely "proclaimed" something without evidence. 

You need to either argue the points I made in the OP, or pack up and move on. I am never going to be baited into an argument about religious beliefs, because I am not a religious person. I have no need or desire to argue for a particular incarnation of god. My argument doesn't rely on any particular incarnation of god, it does not have to be defined to make the argument it exists.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> "You reject spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spirituality."
> 
> Explain to me how this isn't circular.



I don't understand what the fuck you mean? It's a perfectly logical and rational sentence! Most importantly, it is a true and accurate assessment. Circular? I have no idea, it looks pretty damn straightforward to me.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.



And newpolitics admits he doesn't read the threads, nor does he comprehend the little bit he does read. I never admitted any such thing, I never said I was afraid of anything. My cherished belief in god has nothing to do with the argument presented in the OP, and god does not require definition in the argument of existence. 

What we ACTUALLY see here, is a god-hating idiot, who can't formulate a coherent argument against the points made in the OP, so he runs around denigrating, insulting, pretending, lying about what is said, and acting like a juvenile jackass. 

Unlike you, I have seen this plenty of times before.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

I'm not surprised. You are impossible to deal with.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

Ok I see what you are saying.

You don't want to set up a straw man type argument bound to fail
because it is already disputed by opponents who WANT you to slip up. I agree we need to avoid this,  and I gave a similar example of setting God up to mean something contrary so it fails. I also deliberately plan to leave it open enough so we don't set ourselves up to fail.
Agreed!

1. Can we set up a list of points and make sure the theists and other religionists agree their definition of God is INCLUDED in that list somewhere? So the point will be to show that all these attributes or depictions of God are to be shown to be describing the same God or aspects/authorities of the one God.

2. as for being arbitrary, we can avoid that also. where the people involved in the proof process only contribute things they actually believe in. no fair saying you don't believe God is a "white haired old man looking down from a cloud" and then picking that to mean God, if you don't even believe in it. that does no good. if someone else believes in that, but it does not reconcile with others' views of God, then part of the process is to work with those particular people to get something that is at least complementary or compatible even if it is not the same thing literally.



Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Boss: Even if we do not NEED to define something in order to prove or even believe it exists; for the sake of making sure we are agreeing what we are trying to prove, it helps to agree on what that thing is, and what it is not.
> ...



the point IS to trouble shoot, to bring to light the points of trouble so we can resolve those issues standing in the way of the proof process. so by discussing definitions of God we can elminate teh arbitrary or contrary perceptions and move toward more universal meanings.

Boss, all your points are valid and I agree these are what causes problems.
The point of the process is to bring these issues and conflicts out to be resolved, so this is a necessary step anyway. if people have strawman type definitions of God that mess people up, let's get those straight too! and what we'll have left are things that might work.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.



I'm not using circular logic, you are. I'm using a simple "IF-THEN" statement to make a point... IF you don't believe in spirituality, THEN you will not accept spiritual evidence. There is nothing circular about that logic, it is just plain old regular normal logic. 

Circular logic is when you say that you don't believe in god because there is no physical evidence of god. IF there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.
> ...



Gee Boss man, at this point I find newpolitics at least explains objections and viewpoints better than people who would not even give that much to work with! next to others, i have seen much worse in terms of willingness to discuss the matter. NP has fine ability to reason and communicate that reasoning. that is plenty to work with, with or without the Bible or anything else NP does not care to read or reference. the more we narrow it down the better. what matters is if people are willing to forgive and correct as we go.

I find both you and NP are willing to do so, even where you set each other off, you still both answered with reasons for objections, so that is workable with.

We can make this work, by focusing on what we personally believe, why or why not is this consistent or inconsistent with itself, and not worrying if the other person is messed up or not. let that person explain his or her own views, and we can still work through this.

Boss I've seen much worse with people with no ability to express their thoughts so they just emotionally wall up in frustration, blame the first thing convenient to justify quitting. Some people can't handle it emotionally, but here, there are enough of us able to stay objective and not get emotionally blocked.

i don't see you or NP quitting because you both believe you are right about what you believe and understand, and you can both describe faults with the process objectively. I agree with the gist of most of your points, and the minor issues I have can be resolved. So I see more right than wrong with what you are saying. And if all of us are right about our points, then these should be able to be reconciled. And anything that isn't consistent will be resolved in the process. so we all win and everyone benefits, and any corrections are usual a mutual give and take. So nobody is going to be more right or wrong on different points than anyone else. the process of elimination is NOT to get rid of "people" by showing where they are wrong, but to identify and resolve conflicts so everyone can be right with the helpful points we do have to offer.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Ok I see what you are saying.
> 
> You don't want to set up a straw man type argument bound to fail
> because it is already disputed by opponents who WANT you to slip up. I agree we need to avoid this,  and I gave a similar example of setting God up to mean something contrary so it fails. I also deliberately plan to leave it open enough so we don't set ourselves up to fail.
> ...



I have no problem, in some other thread, discussing the various ideas about what/who god is. I am not "afraid" of such a discussion, and will be glad to present my personal beliefs. But this thread had a specific argument to make, and that was to definitively prove the existence of god. The argument of existence has nothing to do with definition. I see a person standing in the courtyard, that person exists, I can see them. I do not need to define the person is a man or woman, I don't need to know their character, or what they ate for breakfast. Those things have nothing to do with their existence in the courtyard. 

Trying or organize a list of things that we can all agree on, to "create a god" we can all "believe in" is a nice thought, but futile and hopeless, because god relates to individuals on a personal level. Instead, why don't we look at "god" in metaphoric terms? That is the context I am using in the OP argument, god does not have to be defined. God can be understood by you in a different way than me, but god is universally spiritual. My argument simply views god from the spiritual perspective, and doesn't assume any particular incarnation. Spirituality is a strong argument for god, that's why the god-haters need to rope you into definitions, so they can then attack your incarnation, and ignore spirituality.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
> ...



yes and no, boss.
with proving how spiritual healing works to cure patients of cancer, schizophrenia, etc.
there is both spiritual process going on that we cannot fully SEE
and also medical and physical changes that we can measure and document
as following specific patterns before and after the therapy that heals such conditions.

so it can be shown to work medically using scientific measure and methods
and it still can be a spiritual process

it is possible for people to see this works
and still see it as natural and nothing to do with God

so the point is not so much to prove it has to be from a God
but to prove that the processes are universal 
so we can still agree on and apply those regardless of our beliefs of where it comes from

I have a friend who went through the same spiritual healing process
as in Scott Peck's book where he treated two schizophrenic patients suffering
from demonic voices that were removed or controllable after he conducted
spiritual deliverance as the priests do by their traditions

Peck noted that one of the patients did not convert or become religious after she was cured
but went the other way and gave up her new age religion and went into science instead

my friend also received the healing from demonic rage and voices he previously
was not able to control but got back control of his mind after the same deliverance
process, and he also is not Christian but remains nontheist. the prayers and healing
still work. he accepted to receive the prayers for forgiveness for generational abuse from the past,
and that is what broke through the self-destructive addictions and demonic voices, regardless what level these are on, real or not,
scientifics or spiritual or whatever. Before these demonic obsessions were there, and he suffered mentally and physically;
and afterwards he could keep them out of his mind where he went back to normal.

so we can show this same process works, even for nontheists who remain nontheist like my friend.
we can show it is universal, whether one person sees the science or the other the spiritual process. 
you don't personally have to believe it comes from "God" yourself as your own way of looking at it,
to "believe" the fact that these are the same laws or process that Chrisitans refer
to when THEY talk about God and authority of Jesus to remove demonic influences.
You don't have to believe the same thing they do, to see it is what THEY mean by THEIR beliefs.

we can still prove this process works scientifically
it does not change the fact that hte spiritual part of the process remains faith-based
and you can look at it either way and understand other people see it another way.
it's still the same process and it's universal for all humanity.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I see what you are saying.
> ...



Yes, I agree to look at God in metaphoric terms.

And just because YOU don't need a solid definition to prove something exists
doesn't mean someone else can do without this.

for the proof process to be universal, it must meet everyone's basis for their own proof.
So what you or I need for proof is different from what someone else needs, agreed?

one person may just need to see an example of Jews/Christians/Muslims
living in peace under one God to "prove" this is the same God. no amount of
theological agreement in words, but real life proof of heavenly peace in the Middle East.

do you agree that the same way people may have different perceptions of God,
they may also have different things required for them to believe or to see proof?

I did start a thread on Consensus on God.
if you want to post there or start a new thread, it will take more than one anyway!

Thanks, Boss!


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Using a conditional doesn't preclude circularity, so I'm not sure why you mentioned this as if it is a refutation. You are saying, If "a," then "a." Well actually, you haven't even defined spiritual evidence or spirituality, so its hard to say. But it sounds like you are trying to say, you must be spiritual to see spiritual evidence, AND the only way to see spiritual evidence is to be spiritual. Again, I ask, how is this not circular?


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
> ...



First of all, I never said I don't believe in god because of a lack of physical evidence. You simply assumed this. I point out a lack of physical evidence because that is a fact. There is no evidence of any type to justify belief in god, for me. Spiritual evidence is a meaningless term until you adequately define it. Drawing bad analogies to things like thoughts or feelings is not a definition, although I understand what you are trying to do.

If god is defined as something completely non-physical, which it almost always is, that doesn't preclude the possibility for its effects to be senses in physical reality (revelation, miracles, creation itself), so it is not circular to say I don't believe in god because of a lack of evidence. Again, it depends upon the definition of god you are using.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > He admits it. He is afraid to define god because the second he does, he knows it can be refuted, toyed with, picked apart, and destroyed. He doesn't want that, so he protects his cherished belief in this god by withholding his definition of god, so we can't actually debate it, all the while he is insulting us for not believing in his spiritual evidence. I don't think I've ever seem anything like this before.
> ...



Now you are just lying. Look at post #141. I'm on my iPhone so its a pain in the ass to quote from two separate posts, but you said it yourself: you don't want to provide a definition of god because then it can actually be debated. I don't know why I am even wasting my time with you when you say things like this.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

So far, I have you pegged as somewhere near a deist? Am I ballpark?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I did not say that, and you are taking what I said out of context to make an invalid claim. I said that definition of god is not needed or required to debate the existence question. I then offered readers an explanation, in my opinion, as to why you continue to try and rope me into defining a specific incarnation of god, and that is because you wish to debate theology.  I am not here to debate theology, I am here to debate existence.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



It's an irrelevant fact, because god is not physical, there is no logical reason for there to be physical evidence of something that isn't physical. The OP did not single you out, I clearly stated that the "God-haters" will chortle there is no physical proof of god. Which, ironically, is precisely what you just chortled.... but that this is a irrational and illogical point. Spiritual entities can't provide physical evidence, if they did, they would no longer be spiritual. Now, we can "interpret" physical evidence to be the result of spiritual entities, I am not saying that can't be the case, it most certainly is the case. But to try and prove or disprove a spiritual entity with physical science and physical evidence, is not possible or logical. What is important to examine, is SPIRITUAL evidence, which you refuse to recognize. 



> Spiritual evidence is a meaningless term until you adequately define it. Drawing bad analogies to things like thoughts or feelings is not a definition, although I understand what you are trying to do.



And this is the problem, you are not willing to accept spirituality or spiritual evidence. In order to objectively evaluate the 'existence' (in a spiritual sense) of god, you have to first recognize that such 'existence' is possible. You don't believe it is. Therefore, definitions simply do not matter, they are just a reason for you to object and obfuscate, in order to avoid the evidence presented. 



> If god is defined as something completely non-physical, which it almost always is, that doesn't preclude the possibility for its effects to be senses in physical reality (revelation, miracles, creation itself), so it is not circular to say I don't believe in god because of a lack of evidence. Again, it depends upon the definition of god you are using.



You don't believe in god, a spiritual entity, because there is a lack of physical evidence, which a spiritual entity is not logically expected to provide, and you reject all spiritual evidence, which is the only type of evidence that can definitively prove existence of a spiritual entity. This CIRCULAR logic precludes you from ever understanding the spiritual evidence presented or recognizing the definitive proof as such.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Even more irony. Having clearly established that you do not understand logic you have just tacitly refuted your own illogical OP. It is unlikely that you will comprehend how this happened since you cannot seem to make logical connections either. Suffice to say that you have done more than sufficient harm to your own position that it is now irreparable. Better luck next time. Have a nice day.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

How can I hate god when I don't even know what it is?


----------



## G.T. (May 1, 2013)

I've not seen definitive proof presented in the op or its following arguments, that's for sure. 

*If spirituality than God* is a stretch, a baseless one. It has not been backed up.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Circular logic is technically valid, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
> ...



Arrant nonsense. There is evidence of spirituality albeit non-scientific reproducible evidence. There is no need for any "belief" in spirituality. It exists in some people more so than others. The existence of spirituality has nothing to do with the existence of any deity. There is simply no evidence, spiritual or otherwise, for the existence of a deity. 

Finally your allegation that if "there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual" is just bizarre. Christianity is based upon the premise that their God physically manifested as a human being. Are you now saying that the existence of Jesus is evidence that your God has no spiritual dimension if he actually exists?


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> *No it doesn't help. What a definition of god does, is open the door for criticism and argument over the definition. The God-haters desperately want me to give a definition of god, so they can then attack my definition.  * Reason being, they can't refute the points in the OP.



Disregarding your excuse at the end for why you wont post a definition, the emboldened section clearly shows that are simply afraid to state a clear definition.  When you make a claim, you have to define, in any sense, what it is you are claiming, otherwise you aren't claiming anything. 

How do you know that a spiritual being doesn't exist in, or interact with the physical? A panentheist god does exactly that,  existing in both this universe and beyond, as defined. The god of Christianity is supposedly a spiritual being that interacts in the physical world all the time, with miracles, revelation... yet, this god is not physical.  This notion of a spiritual entity being relegated only to the spiritual world is not what we see in any religion. A god which interacts with the physical world and one which is exists as part of the physical world, are two different things. Which leads me to the third time, to this paradox: 

* If god does not interact with the physical world at all, then there can be no evidence of its existence, spiritual (still undefined) or otherwise. If this god does interact with the physical world, then we should expect to find some evidence or trace of its activity, in the physical world. We do not
*

I could play the same game and say: a Bloo-Bloo exists. Undoubtedly, you have no idea what I am referring to. Now imagine I played the same game you are, and strongly asserted the Bloo-bloo's existence, and them said, "the reason you can't see the Bloo-Bloo, is because you don't believe in Bloo-Bloo evidence." What can you do with this? Nothing. This is what you are doing. Stop being an asshole or I'm out.


----------



## HUGGY (May 1, 2013)

The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME.  The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM?  What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity.  When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous.  There is no end game.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I didn't argue that god was a deity. If something is not scientifically reproducible or explainable, there is no physical evidence. The existence of spirituality inherently in humans dating back to the beginning, is indeed important in determining the existence of god. If you lack understanding of spiritual evidence, you are inclined to view spirituality as if it were superstition. However, the study of species behavioral characteristics, and even according to Darwin's own theories, negates the possibility of spirituality being mere superstitions. These beliefs would have been discarded for the sake of survival of the species, long ago, if they were nothing more than superstition or fear of the unknown, etc. 



> Finally your allegation that if "there was physical evidence of god, it would no longer be spiritual" is just bizarre. Christianity is based upon the premise that their God physically manifested as a human being. Are you now saying that the existence of Jesus is evidence that your God has no spiritual dimension if he actually exists?



Jesus was not a spiritual entity, he was a physical human being, who existed in the physical universe, and can be verified or confirmed with physical sciences. Whether he was also a spiritual being, is an argument for another thread on theology. This is a thread about existence of god. There is no physical evidence for spiritual entities, and it is illogical to assume there should be or could be, because if there were, they would cease to be spiritual, as the entity is provable by physical evidence, to exist in a physical state of being.... thus, no longer spiritual. It is an impossible and illogical criteria to set.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME.  The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM?  What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity.  When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous.  There is no end game.



Ah, yes... I've heard this one before as well, Who Created the Creator? But it PRESUMES that a Creator would logically require creation. There is no real basis for this presumption, other than how things seem to work in the physical realm, the natural order in the physical universe. Who says that God must be created? Perhaps God has always been and has no origin?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *No it doesn't help. What a definition of god does, is open the door for criticism and argument over the definition. The God-haters desperately want me to give a definition of god, so they can then attack my definition.  * Reason being, they can't refute the points in the OP.
> ...



No it doesn't say that. Sorry. I was responding to someone who thought that we needed to define god, in order to discuss existence of god. I was explaining why it's not conducive to the argument, that it actually derails the argument, and turns it into a debate about theological versions of god. I believe this is a strategy you and others employ, when confronted with an argument you can't refute, as I presented. I'm not afraid, I'm smart. 



> When you make a claim, you have to define, in any sense, what it is you are claiming, otherwise you aren't claiming anything.



Oh, but I did define what I claimed, I presented about 6 paragraphs worth of arguments to support what I claimed, and you have yet to refute anything I posted. You want me to define a specific incarnation of god, so that you can attack that incarnation and derail the argument and the thread, and I am calling you out on it, which you don't appear to like. 



> How do you know that a spiritual being doesn't exist in, or interact with the physical?



Fuck... when did I say that spiritual entities didn't interact with the physical world? Jeesh! I'm going to have to really watch my words, if that's what I said, because I could have sworn that one of my major points in arguing existence of god, was mankind's intrinsic connection to spirituality through interaction. In fact, I am positive this was one of my points, and not one you were making. That's so weird! 



> I could play the same game and say: a Bloo-Bloo exists. Undoubtedly, you have no idea what I am referring to. Now imagine I played the same game you are, and strongly asserted the Bloo-bloo's existence, and them said, "the reason you can't see the Bloo-Bloo, is because you don't believe in Bloo-Bloo evidence." What can you do with this? Nothing. This is what you are doing. Stop being an asshole or I'm out.



Well, if humankind has always been intrinsically drawn to and involved with Bloo-Bloo and this trait in humans had spanned the entire gamut of their existence as a species, I would conclude that human interaction with Bloo-Bloo was fundamental to the species, and supported the case for the existence of Bloo-Bloo, either physically or spiritually. Furthermore, if I encountered ignorant people who refused to accept the type of evidence that proved Bloo-Bloo exists, I would call them closed-minded, and encourage them to open their minds to possibility, and stop rejecting what they don't understand. If they insisted on evidence that Bloo-Bloo can't logically provide, I would correct them on that.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your conclusion that the Bloo-Bloo is fundamental or intrinsic to the species is false. The same with god. The reason religious belief exists is because it is a socially cohesive factor. As we are an intensely social species and survived by cooperation, this factor increased solidarity and this, enhanced cooperation and hence, increased survivability. Groups with higher solidarity are more likely to survive. Also, "god" can also be an attempt by intelligent species' in answering questions about reality that were unanswerable until modern day science. Your concluding god by Ocam's razor (sp?) is a fucking joke, and not at all what Ocamm's razor would say. You are adding an entity to the universe. Ocam's razor would cut out this entity, and explain religious belief naturally. Considering you know next to nothing about this entity since you can't even define it, you haven't made things any simpler. Only added more complexity.


----------



## HUGGY (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The obvious problem with the GOD "game" is that there is no demonstrable END GAME.  The arguement that "Where did all this come from?" ..."It had to be a god" extends out into never never land and beyond because now if it takes a genius god that can interact with the physical plane we reside in...WHERE DID THIS GOD COME FROM?  What MADE this god and his boss and so on into infinity.  When viewed in a MACRO template the concept is rediculous.  There is no end game.
> ...



The same arguement can steer the conversation back into reality.  There is no evidense to presume that this universe was "created".


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Your six paragraphs are not good argumentation. Its about quality, not quantity. Nowhere in your "six paragraphs" is a demonstrable proof of god. Just a lot of side stepping your burden of proof that you yoked around yourself.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God? 
==================
Dear Newpolitics and Boss: To say I greatly respect your intellectual honesty and convictions and discernment in making your points, is an understatement. 
Thank you for your patience and your going through the extra effort it takes to spell out what your objections are. If everyone started doing the same, we can all make this work.

We either answer or correct the objections, or we find a way to shape the proof where it is "unconditional" and bypasses those either/or issues. So what we will have left is the
content or process of the proof.

A. regarding how to define or not define God where we can agree what we are proving without setting anyone up to fail

A1. are you okay with the loose general concept given above?
do you feel this loose "working definition" is generally what is meant by God and is still open enough to include or add in other aspects/manifestations and meanings associated with God including nontheist and atheist concepts?

even if this is not perfect, are you willing to start with this, and we can adapt it as necessary

A2. can we agree that Boss does not want to set this up to fail, similar to a strawman argument, and that it's okay to keep that position that definition is not necessary to prove existence. for people to have this view does not affect the proof. So I am okay with saying yes it is not necessary, even though I ask for the proof process to start with defining the meanings or aspects associated with God. As long as we can agree with some basic meanings or definitions as okay to associate with God, that's fine to say it's not really needed.

B. as for how to prove something physically/scientifically when the God nature or process we would be proving is spiritual and faith-based

I propose to focus on the process which is both on an abstract level that is "faith based"
and has measurable changes or steps that can be quantified and documented:

B1. For scientific studies, I propose to prove that the process of healing people of either mental or physical illness using deliverance prayer CAN be documented and measured
medically, using a combination of psychiatric evaluations of conditions before during and after successful treatment, and technology for mapping out brain or emotional patterns of patients, along with reports of both the patients and doctors about changes in conditions.

so even though it is faith based that whatever energy and patterns documented are connected to a "spiritual process" at least we can show these energies do exist and change from negative (correlating to mental illness and destructive or additive behavior)
to positive (correlating to improved health and recovery and return to normal behavior)

B2. for the process of reconciliation as we are starting here
I propose that we study the effect on the process of either
* unforgiveness in the minds of the participants as correlating with inability
to make changes or corrections but instead denying and projecting blame
so this blocks the process emotionally
* forgiveness as correlating with ability to let go and stay objective in making corrections
so this allows the process to move forward
when starting with a small sample group, this will just be observation among
the participants

B3. however, if this process expands and involves replicating the same with
larger populations, and different religious/political groups,
then this study of forgiveness/unforgiveness on the reconciliation process
can be mapped out statistically to show patterns over larger samples

C. Lastly as a side note, even if this proof process stalls out,
the benefits gained from documenting the points that could not be resolved
still helps to educate others, so even if we fail here, maybe others can
address the sticking points and find ways to work through those.

So as I wrote out to Boss, it's not something to be avoided
to have these objections and arguments come up where people try to make
someone fail, but something to be included if we are going to address
and resolve all possible objections or obstacles.

There are only so many patterns that people follow,
so even though people have unique views and paths,
we can document the most common and then take it from there
to diversify and include others coming from other angles into this proof process.

Overall, the proof is not so much about proving the existence of God
but proving any obstacles can be resolved or explained or worked around
that otherwise prevent people from seeing that we are talking about the
same things, whether a spiritual entity or process or universal laws etc.
and just use different language terms or principles to express parts of that.

So most of the proof is backwards, by removing the ocnflicts or obstacles.
The part that may take the form of formal proof is
documenting the spiritual healing and the forgiveness process
in terms of affect on healing the mind body and relationships.

As people experience or see this happening, it changes
the perception and is part of the proof process itself.

Thank you and please let me know your feedback or
criticisms/suggestions or corrections on the above points.

Yours truly,
Emily









emilynghiem said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Emily, while I always appreciate your benevolent and patient tone in these often hostile discussions, I do not find your exegesis of the New Testament to be a convicting argument for god, as you are presupposing that god exists and inspired the bible.
> ...


----------



## emilynghiem (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Your six paragraphs are not good argumentation. Its about quality, not quantity. Nowhere in your "six paragraphs" is a demonstrable proof of god. Just a lot of side stepping your burden of proof that you yoked around yourself.



Dear NP: any proof of God will not take place with some linear argument; at most that could prove one person's understanding of God to another person. but no two people I know respond to the same explanations. 

so the proof is in the process of reaching a consensus among diverse people 
that we are all talking about the same things, though we use different terms and
ways of defining the laws or truths we see in the world. because each person has unique views, these arguments will take as many forms
as there are relationships between these people and groups; the PATTERNS may be similar, but the content will vary.

it is more a process of elimination, of resolving conflicts in perception and communication, and eliminating debatable points of disagreement that are not necessary for the proof. again, we can show the basic pattern or steps, but each instance will involve different people, views and points to reach agreement between them.

such as Boss' point that technically it is not necessary to define something before
proving it exists; whether that can be argued with or not,
that point does NOT have to be proven one way or another
before setting up the proof process starting with at least some working descriptions.

these don't even have to be perfect if we can agree
to adjust them as we go if it works for everyone

Bossman: would you be okay with adding an agreement at the beginning not to hang
anyone over changes but to take a forgiving/corrective approach BEFORE trying to set out general terms or definitions and before proceeding with the proof process.

if everyone participating equally agrees to mutual corrections and not abusing conflicts or differences to try to discredit exclude or kick someone out, then we don't have to worry about people trying to set things up to fail, or going off on tangents over a side issue of disagreement, when this point can either be rsolved, corrected or shown to be not
necessary as a condition, so that the process of reconciling can still proceed even if we never agree on that point. can we agree to work around it and not get stuck.

I sense you and Newpolitics already work on this level of making corrections
and not using a flaw in the process as an excuse to blame and quit and run
saying this won't work because this other person or thing won't change, etc.

Just because you are both adept at pointing out these conflicts
doesn't mean we have to get stuck there. let's note each one,
and move on, finding some way to work around them where it
does not affect the process even if we never resolve those side points.

are you ok with this?

Can you and Newpolitics come up with general list of terms or
metaphoric qualities or attributes that we can attempt to prove "can be
agreed upon" as all coming from or describing the same God regardless
of what form this God exists, these basic attributes are what we have to work with
in terms of building a consensus among different people and views.

and in the process we can show there is a pattern for
why people get stuck and what allows people to resolve things
so this follows a predictable pattern, where it can be inferred
that this process can be replicated over larger populations
so that other people can reconcile diverse views as well.

the point will be regardless if God exists or not or what form this takes,
a consensus can be reached on the meaning of God and the
message, content or purpose of universal laws as long as people agree to forgive
when conflicts or differences arise between them; the reason people fail at
reaching a consensus is when one or both parties in conflict
cannot forgive an issue so it stalls out the process of reconciliation;
thus it is not so much a matter of people having conflicting views, because
this is expected in the process, but being willing to forgive and accept differences whlie correcting points that can be changed, so any objections/conflicts
can be resolved otherwise prevetning agreement from being reached.

something like that, are you okay with that
and/or can you spell it out more clearly?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Your conclusion that the Bloo-Bloo is fundamental or intrinsic to the species is false. The same with god.



Well God is intrinsic and fundamental to the human species, because humans have been spiritual since the beginning. Bloo-Bloo is a hypothetical non-existent, which was a supposed to mirror God. As I said in the OP, even Charles Darwin made this observation in his theory of evolution. Are you rejecting Darwinism now?



> The reason religious belief exists is because it is a socially cohesive factor.



Why do I have to continue correcting you on this, I am not arguing for *religious* belief. Spirituality in humans does not exist because it is a socially cohesive factor, and it hasn't persisted through millenniums of war and persecution because it is socially cohesive. 



> As we are an intensely social species and survived by cooperation, this factor increased solidarity and this, enhanced cooperation and hence, increased survivability. Groups with higher solidarity are more likely to survive.



Again, human history is full of events that contradict this theory, when it comes to spiritual beliefs. 



> Also, "god" can also be an attempt by intelligent species' in answering questions about reality that were unanswerable until modern day science.



Again, this is addressed in the OP. If this were true, we'd see a significant drop off in spirituality within the species, as knowledge has evolved. We don't see this. 



> Your concluding god by Ocam's razor (sp?) is a fucking joke, and not at all what Ocamm's razor would say.



It's EXACTLY what it would say, because that's what it says. 

Occam's razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest theory for the fact that humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual belief, is that god is legitimate and real. If we had some greater explanatory power to overcome what we observe with the behavior of the species, it can be considered, but so far, you've not presented anything. 



> You are adding an entity to the universe. Ocam's razor would cut out this entity, and explain religious belief naturally. Considering you know next to nothing about this entity since you can't even define it, you haven't made things any simpler. Only added more complexity.



Occam's razor doesn't say a thing about "naturally" or "physically" and is a theory about logic. It doesn't explain religious belief or proclaim physical science the hubris of all answers and powers. Sorry! 

I haven't said I can't define my belief in god. In fact, I welcomed a new thread so we could all discuss our beliefs in god and theology, that would be interesting, and you might be interested to find out more about what I believe. But this thread is about the definitive proof that god exists. God need not be defined to examine this question. 

I made a case, key points were established which you simply can't argue with or refute. As is typical in such situations, you want to change the conversation.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Problem is, this isn't true. We know the universe is expanding, and we have theorized the beginning started with a Big Bang. So if it didn't exist, then it did, it was created.


----------



## newpolitics (May 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Your conclusion that the Bloo-Bloo is fundamental or intrinsic to the species is false. The same with god.
> ...



Who is trying to change the conversation, you nimwit?! I am confronting your flawed logic and reasoning head on.

Your use of Occam's razor is entirely innaccurate. . Introducing a deity about which nothing is known to explain away any knowledge gaps is called "god of the gaps" and is a massive assumption that Occam's razor would not allow, since it operates under the principle of parsimony in regards to assumptions. In introducing something unexplainable or unknowable, such as god, you have only introducdd something else that needs to be explained, so you are no better off. Occam's razor is not simply "less is better." You must not introduce any assumptions which are themselves unexplainable. This defeats the idea of parsimony. Especially since you are not able to even define god, you are making a joke out of Occam's razor, and it is pathetic. "God did it" is simpler, until you are for forced to explain god. Since you can't do that, this approach fails. 

You haven't made ANY points which still stand. They have all been knocked down. Stop deluding yourself.

My point about natural explanation and Occams Razor was specific to this application, and had nothing to do with my belief about the definition or use of Occam's Razor in general being involved with naturalism. It just so happens the Occam's Razor does not support the use of a supernatural agent, because such a strategy introduces more questions than it answers.

For the last time, when discussing something which is no where to be seen, you do need to define it. This doesn't imply theology simply to do so. Again, here you are just pulling conclusions from no where. This is simply  matter of logic. If you make a claim, you need to define it so people know what the hell you are talking about. Need I bring Bloo-Bloo back into this? You made a number of unwarranted assumptions about Bloo-Bloo, btw. And you were dead wrong.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Who is trying to change the conversation, you nimwit?! I am confronting your flawed logic and reasoning head on.



But you haven't. You continue to try and make the argument be about something you can win on, and ignore the points I've made. You had rather argue that I made an analogy instead of an example with black holes, you want to argue that I have to define MY god before we can examine existence objectively, you want to argue that I am afraid, you want to argue about Occam's razor... or anything else I say along the way that you can pull the debate off the tracks and distract from the fact that you can't present a coherent argument to refute the points I made. 



> Your use of Occam's razor is entirely innaccurate.



I'm sorry, I didn't notice where Occam gave you authority to determine when his razor could be used. Again, Occam's theory deals with logic... it basically says, the simplest explanations for things are the most logical, and objective evaluation should begin there. The simplest explanation for an inherent attribute in a species for all of it's existence as a species, is that it is not only fundamental, but legitimate. There's something to it. There is some reason mankind is intrinsically tied to spiritual faith, and Occam says the simplest answer is the most logical, that answer being, humans worship of something greater than self, exists because something is greater than self. 



> Introducing a deity about which nothing is known to explain away any knowledge gaps is called "god of the gaps" ....



WHY do you continue to insist that I have mentioned deities? WHEN did I indicate something was introduced to explain away knowledge gaps? That is YOUR debunked argument. IF spirituality were simply there to fill knowledge gaps, we would have witnessed a massive decline in spiritual belief within the species. WHY do you keep ignoring this point? 



> and is a massive assumption that Occam's razor would not allow, since it operates under the principle of parsimony in regards to assumptions. In introducing something unexplainable or unknowable, such as god, you have only introducdd something else that needs to be explained, so you are no better off. Occam's razor is not simply "less is better." You must not introduce any assumptions which then require further explanation. This defeats the idea of parsimony.



Occam's razor does not merely apply to physical science, this is what you seem to believe. The principle of parsimony is merely the idea the simplest explanations are the most sensible. This can apply to physical principles and theories, but it can also apply to spiritual theories. That is YOUR quotes around "less is better" not mine, again... I never said that, and you seem to have a real problem quoting me accurately, all through this debate. 

In this argument, YOU are the one introducing other assumptions which require further explanation, I am maintaining that god exists, and this is why humans have always been intrinsically connected spiritually. YOU are the person saying...well, it's because we are social creatures and need to develop social cohesiveness, and explain the unexplained... explain explain explain.  YOU are violating Occam's razor here. 



> Especially since you are not able to even define god, you are making a joke out of Occam's razor, and it is pathetic. "God did it" is simpler, until you are for forced to explain god. Since you can't do that, this approach fails.



Again, I am fully able to define god, as I believe god exists. I have chosen not to in this thread, because it is irrelevant to the question of existence. Ridiculing me by throwing up a "goddidit" is not very intellectual or honest. It's another indicator of your buttache from the total ass pwnage. 



> You haven't made ANY points which still stand. They have all been knocked down. Stop deluding yourself.



HAHA... WHERE? 



> My point about natural explanation and Occams Razor was specific to this application, and had nothing to do with my belief about the definition or use of Occam's Razor in general being involved with naturalism. It just so happens the Occam's Razor does not support the use of a supernatural agent, because such a strategy introduces more questions than it answers.



Because you only see Physical evidence. You believe Occam's razor can only apply to Physical evidence, Physical arguments, Physical principles and theories. But Occam's razor is not confined to JUST physical science or physical hypothesis. The principle is ABOUT logic and evaluation of questions, and I disagree that when we apply the razor here, it introduces more questions. I think it establishes the answer definitively. That's why you don't want to apply it. 



> For the last time, when discussing something which is no where to be seen, you do need to define it. This doesn't imply theology simply to do so. Again, here you are just pulling conclusions from no where. This is simply  matter of logic. If you make a claim, you need to define it so people know what the hell you are talking about. Need I bring Bloo-Bloo back into this? You made a number of unwarranted assumptions about Bloo-Bloo, btw. And you were dead wrong.



No I don't need to define something to prove it exists. How many more times do we need to rehash this one point? We know something exists by the evidence of it's existence, not by how it is defined. Einstein would certainly back me up on this, we don't have to define it to understand it does exist. But now... do we need to revisit the whole conversation regarding "existence" again? And how spiritual "existence" means something completely different than physical "existence?" We can't expect a physical existence of something spiritual, it defies logic, and would make the spiritual something physical, if it had physical properties. 

You can bring up Bloo-Bloo again, it's an imaginary hypothetical you invented to attempt mocking me, so it only serves to prove my point about total ass pwnage. I have made no unwarranted assumptions about human spiritual connection or what Darwin said about behaviors inherent in species over vast spans of time. Those are all legitimate facts I've presented and you have yet to refute. Even though, in your head, I am sure you're winning this argument.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Who is trying to change the conversation, you nimwit?! I am confronting your flawed logic and reasoning head on.
> ...



 Occam's razor and evolutionary theory doesn't give you a creator. You can't assert something without defining it. Bloo-Bloo was not an attempt at mocking you, but showing you that simply that saying "god exists" without defining it at all is non-sensical.  We keep on going around in circles with you continually claiming that I'm avoiding the OP when all I've done is deconstruct it. I have addressed most of the bullshit in the OP: the stupid idea that thoughts and feelings don't exist an are evidence of a "spiritual realm" ( really??), the idea that Occam's razor and natural selection point to a creator... These two giant blunders form the your "six paragraphs" is enough to cripple your argument. You no longer have "spiritual evidence" and you no longer have a basis for god in humanity. I've done more than enough to refute this amateur  attempt at proving god. It is simply your arrogance and ego that disallow to face this truth. No doubt you will come back as if I have done none of what I claimed. Just more "chortling" from a delusional theist. (Btw, "chortle" means to laugh gleefully. Why did you use it in this discussion? Nothing about your sad display of apologetics incites laughter)


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Occam's razor and evolutionary theory doesn't give you a creator.



Where did I mention a creator? Where did I say Occam and evolution give one? Once again, you seem to want to read shit into what I have posted, or read something entirely different than what I am posting. I am not sure how to have a conversation with you on these terms, I can't be responsible for whatever is making your brain imagine these things that I haven't said or argued, and you seem to be unable to overcome this affliction. 



> You can't assert something without defining it.



You most certainly can. You can not only assert it, you can definitively prove it exists, without ever having to define it. (See Einstein)



> Bloo-Bloo was not an attempt at mocking you, but showing you that simply that saying "god exists" without defining it at all is non-sensical.



I agree... and if my OP simply said... "GOD EXISTS!" then you'd have a point. However, anyone who has the intellect to read the OP in this thread, can clearly see I have laid out a case, with numerous points, which you have yet to address or refute. You have instead, nonsensically repeated that "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!" 



> We keep on going around in circles with you continually claiming that I'm avoiding the OP when all I've done is deconstruct it.



We keep going in circles because you keep derailing the topic so we can hash out what is an analogy, when can you apply a theory about logic, or if something needs to be defined to prove existence. Then we have your misquotes and miscomprehension about what I've posted, and we have to stop and clean up your mess. You've not deconstructed a thing, you might THINK you have, but your case has simply not been made. 



> I have addressed most of the bullshit in the OP: the stupid idea that thoughts and feelings don't exist an are evidence of a "spiritual realm" ( really??)



You must really have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never said that dreams and thoughts don't exists or are evidence of a spiritual realm. I presented dreams and thoughts as examples of things we do know exist, but have no physical proof of. You presented examples of physical evidence to show that thought happened or emotion was felt, but you failed to prove existence physically, because thoughts and dreams are not physical things, and do not "physically" exist. 



> , the idea that Occam's razor and natural selection point to a creator... These two giant blunders form the your "six paragraphs" is enough to cripple your argument.



Well I didn't use Occam's razor in the OP, but it applies to any question or hypothesis. I never said it "pointed to" anything, just that it supports my argument. Natural selection also supports my argument, and you have YET to refute that point. HERE you simply proclaim that I am wrong, laughably wrong, and that's all there is to it! That's not a suitable rebuttal to ANY argument, as far as I know. 



> You no longer have "spiritual evidence" and you no longer have a basis for god in humanity.



Really? Because you proclaimed it? Weren't you the one who was complaining earlier (falsely) about argument by assertion? Didn't you just get through stating that it was "nonsensical" to just proclaim "god exists?" Isn't that what you are doing now? Because I am not seeing a presentation of evidence here, I am seeing you ridicule and scoff at things I've said, dismiss and blow off the points I've made, and chortle yet another proclamation that you are right and have proven me wrong. 



> I've done more than enough to refute this amateur  attempt at proving god. It is simply your arrogance and ego that disallow to face this truth. No doubt you will come back as if I have done none of what I claimed. Just more "chortling" from a delusional theist. (Btw, "chortle" means to laugh gleefully. Why did you use it in this discussion? Nothing about your sad display of apologetics incites laughter)



Dude, you've done nothing but bluster and spew. Not a single point I made has been adequately addressed. Even in this paragraph, you attempt to divert the conversation and talk about what "chortle" means, instead of staying on topic. When I can get you to stay on topic, all you do is proclaim I am wrong and you are right, and that's all there is to it, and you've refuted me and I just can't deal with it.... then you go right back to trying to divert the topic, ridiculing, obfuscating, find other things to criticize, grossly misquoting me, pretending I've said shit I never said, whatever the fuck you can think of besides presenting your case. 


Apologetics? What have I apologized for???


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

What is the name of this thread? 

"Definitive proof that GOD EXISTS"

Now, you are back pedaling away from that claim? It's a little too late for that. Besides, you fail to define god, so what do you care if I call god  a "creator"? 

You absolutely were trying to establish that god exists because of natural selection. Again, given you lack of definition for any of your terms in the OP, you have no right to complain. Again, you are backpedaling away from your claims because they are untenable.  By the way, I NEVER claimed god doesn't exist, so don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of making things up. First of all, I haven't. Secondly, it appears that you are. How fucking ironic.

You are honestly the dumbest theist I've ever encountered. Your justification for claiming something to exist without definition is "see Einstein"?   So you just mention Einstein's name in the hope that I will shutter with fear and back off? You are an IDIOT. 

This is possibly the worst argument for nothing I've ever heard. In fact, the only one. So far, you aren't even a theist, because you haven't claimed anything regarding a theistic god, since you can't define it. Perhaps you are a theological non-cognitivist and you don't even realize it. This would explain why you can't define god, because god is undefinable. Might want to look into that.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence.  Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> What is the name of this thread?
> 
> "Definitive proof that GOD EXISTS"
> 
> Now, you are back pedaling away from that claim? It's a little too late for that.



But I haven't backpedaled from anything. The thread title is articulated in the OP, where a case is made which definitively proves that god exists. You refuse to accept the spiritual evidence to support the argument, but that does not mean it wasn't definitively proven. 



> Besides, you fail to define god, so what do you care if I call god  a "creator" and you absolutely were trying to establish that god exists because of natural selection.



Well it matters because I never claimed god was a creator. When you say I claimed something I didn't claim, it's important to point that out. I did not try to _"establish that god exists because of natural selection."_ I offered as evidence for human spirituality, the intrinsic and inherent human trait that has always existed in the species, and then I told you what Darwin says about this. You haven't offered anything to refute my point. 



> Again, you are backpedaling away from your claims because they are untenable.



I have not backed away from anything except for the statements I have never made, which you continue to post as if they are present here. Again, I can not be responsible for your imagination, or conversations happening inside your head. No telling what all I am saying there! 



> By the way, I NEVER claimed god doesn't exist, so don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of making things up. First of all, I haven't. Secondly, it appears that you are. How fucking ironic.



Really, that's not what you are saying? "there is no proof god exists..." Those aren't your words? Seems to me, you are going to some mighty extreme lengths to flood the thread with superfluous nonsense and obfuscation, to NOT be saying this. 



> You are honestly the dumbest theist I've ever encountered, ever. Your justification for claiming something to exist without definition is "see Einstein"?   So you just mention Einstein's name in the hope that I will shutter with fear and back off? You are an IDIOT.



Well, thank you! Since I have never claimed to be or wanted to be a theist, it's good to know I wouldn't be a very smart one! I didn't mention Einstein to scare you, but rather, because Einstein proved things can certainly be shown to exist, without defining them. I have presented several other physical examples, like the inside of black holes, which we know, do exist, but can't define. You even presented evidence that we know when thought exists because of electrical impulses in the brain, yet the thought is undefined. So even an abject idiot like yourself, can grasp this concept. Things can exist, and we can prove they exist, without ever having to define them. 



> This is possibly the worst argument for nothing I've ever heard. In fact, the only one. So far, you aren't even a theist, because you haven't claimed anything regarding a theistic god, since you can't define it. Perhaps you are a theological non-cognitivist and you don't even realize it. This would explain why you can't define god, because god is undefinable. Might want to look into that.



Again, I can define my interpretation of god, I have no trouble doing so, and will be happy to do so in a thread about interpretations of god. This thread is definitive proof that god exists, which is a different topic. There is no need to examine my personal view of what god is or get into a theological debate over various incarnations of god. This has never been an argument over theology, and I have repeatedly pointed that out to you. However, you continue to want to try and MAKE the argument about theology, because you KNOW you can dismantle whatever theology is presented. The problem you are having is, I am not playing. I continue to refuse to give you red meat, and it's driving you nuts. How can you destroy my argument if I don't give you any ammo? Poor pinhead!


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

You are clearly incapable of an honest debate.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence.  Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.



Again.... (god i'm getting tired of typing 'again') I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element. You countered with the "electrical impulses" argument, which simply does not prove anything except that thought happened. This kind of obtuse parsing is what you seem to enjoy pulling. You can not prove or disprove what any given person is thinking. No machine or technology exists to do this. You can not define things like "inspiration" in physical terms, because there are things like this, which are not physical in nature. That was the point being made, and all you want to do is act like a jackass and be obtuse. 

I agree that something can't be physical and non-physical at the same time... so why do you keep insisting it means something, that there is no physical evidence for god? Are you saying that because god doesn't defy all logic and reason, you can't believe in him? 

Sounds like it to me.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > In the OP, You said there is no physical proof for a thoughts existence. This is false, but never mind, since you don't have the ability to reason. So, I ask you, if there is no physical proof for something which manifests in the physical realm, how can it exist in the physical at all? This is one of those pesky contradictions I was talking about. You claim thoughts exist in the physical, yet have no physical evidence.  Something can not be physical and non-physical at the same time, yet this is what you are implying.
> ...



Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You are clearly incapable of an honest debate.



No... I am clearly incapable of letting a half-wit moron manipulate what I said, and pretend to have refuted my points through a series of misquotes and misconceptions, unrelated topics and diversions. I am clearly incapable of being baited into a discussion about my personal beliefs, when that isn't the argument. I am clearly incapable of accepting things I never said, as if I had said them, or agreeing that some moron is correct because he proclaims himself to be. 

Honest debate? When is that going to happen with you? Soon???


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought.



This is why I am not debating you. You are either an idiot, or are completely stupid. In not sure which, but either way, its not looking good.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 2, 2013)

I know for a fact God exists.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I know for a fact God exists.



Define god.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.



Debating me? When have you done that? Do you think you have been debating me? Is this going on inside your head, where all these things I never said or posted are happening? 

Let the record show, you have not refuted any point made in the OP. The few times you have even touched on what is actually stated in the OP, it was with arguments already refuted in the OP. For the most part, you have continually misquoted me, or taken things completely out of context, you've attempted numerous times, to derail the conversation with unrelated arguments, and you've sprinkled in a good helping of self-proclaimed hubris and correctness, that is not supported with anything other than your opinion. You've finished up with a flurry of insults and putdowns and even more ridicule and denigration. Now you are going to run away, acting as if you are just frustrated with my "idiocy" and can't take it anymore. 

Chalk one more up for the Boss!


----------



## emilynghiem (May 2, 2013)

Dear Boss and Newpolitics:
If you are still debating points about the logistics, structure or set up of the proof
and what points/steps are unnecessary or wrong etc, can we agree to
distinguish the different types of objections so we don't lose
track of the side points and never get to the content part?
some of the points DO need to be resolved before proceeding
some do not, and some can noted and be resolved later, etc.

May I suggest the following categories of types of objections
or conflicts (and as these come up in the discussion, if
we get stuck on a point, we can label that issue
point A1, A2, B1, B3, etc.

Can we agree to set up some Rules of the Game
[or "Les Regles du Jeu" for IrishRam and Company]

First of all, can we agree the point is to resolve points
not to try to snag each other in a technical deadlock, but to prevent each
other or the process from getting snagged up where we can't reach agreement.
If we don't agree on a sticking point, can we agree to either table
it as something that may or may not be resolved later
and work on the content or the other points we can solve,
then try to go back and resolve the other side points afterwards.

Here are some types of points, if we can track
the issues and not let the side points get inthe way of content:

A. for points of disagreement or objection to the
structure, format, logistics, or set up of the *Arguments* or proof and process

B. for issues regarding a *Bias* that excludes someone or something,
either personal bias or someone else, the useage of a word or system that carries bias.
such as someone objecting to using the word Jesus if this leaves people out, can we agree to discuss the concept of Justice or Salvation or some other meaning that is close enough

C. for issues of actual *Content*
like why would it help to discuss "justice" or "spiritual healing" or
which concepts are universal within the "meaning" of the Bible or Constitutional laws
[B and C run together, but we will try to distinguish when
the problem is coming from content and when the verbal presentation is conflicting]

D. issues or conflicts with other people or groups outside the actual participants that
are causing *division* blocking people from believing reconcilation is possible. such as asking for proof or examples that "Muslims Christians and Jews can reconcile by following this same process", etc. which may need outside assistance to resolve. someone may need to forgive or reconcile with a member of such group before believing it is possible. 

E. emotional reactions or personal limitations affecting the communication
or process (such as being frustrated at work and not finishing,
or projecting anger from something else, or hitting on a personal topic
that just attaches added emotions requiring more time and space for the person)
sometimes this can be resolved, sometimes people have a limit or the timing is off

F. general failure for other reasons not always known, if we can't sort out
where the objection is coming from as a specific issue or reason under A-E)
this can be that pressure from outside sources is blocking the process,
or the omission of someone who could come in and sort out a deadlock, etc.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:
			
		

> *I didn't argue that god was a deity.*


----------



## emilynghiem (May 2, 2013)

RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.

Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God? 



newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > I know for a fact God exists.
> ...



OK so Boss does not want to limit God to "creator" 
and suggested metaphoric level meanings instead.

Can we start there please?

And Newpolitics, yes, the argument or conversation is bound to shift,
if we are going to be successful, since clearly the current approach deadlocked
and is not working too well. so we may have to hit control-alt-delete
on this and go back and restart. both you and Boss can be right at the same time,
but if you are coming at each other as skew lines, and we only have a flat
blackboard to work with, we may need to reset this up on the same plane 
as the common frame of reference to work within.

Boss suggested starting a new thread, are you okay just
starting here? can we start by examining what metaphoric
meanings or aspects of God are open enough where
we don't have to fear getting snagged on some issue
someone may have with the terms discussed.

Boss, can I invite Derideo Te and Numan to help us
pick terms or meanings general enough
that won't cause issues with nontheists/atheists.

Newpolitics asked for a definition of God
can we throw out some ideas and start there?
does not have to be perfect, let's go through
all the possible angles and find one that works for now. Thanks!

And if you prefer to start a new thread, to brainstorm and
go over different terms/manifestations of God or universal laws,
please do so, and please link the thread back here, so we can
still proceed with this thread as well if you want! I do want to see this through to
a logical conclusion. I am very interested in what you both
have to say, and don't want this disrupted over a technical
issue of how to set up the arguments to begin with. Yours truly, Emily


----------



## emilynghiem (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> Chalk one more up for the Boss!



So far this only shows that the previous exchange
did not succeed in either proving or disproving God.

Can we try again please?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Your an idiot dude. I'm done debating you. Have fun convincing nobody of nothing.
> ...



One more what? Self gratification that you are incapable of comprehending logic and reason? Denial that your nonsense was thoroughly debunked? Feeling "holier than thou" because your idiocy and ignorance drives others to distraction? Being completely close minded and obstinate in the face of facts and evidence? All of the above?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 2, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.
> 
> Does this cover everything that people generally mean by God?
> 
> ...



Emily, if this was Oldguy or FA_Q2 there would be every reason to do so as you suggest but sometimes you have to know when to pick your battles. In this instance more than one poster has attempted to reason with Boss and run headlong into a brick wall of obstinacy and obfuscation. This is a lost cause and there is far more fertile ground for your talents elsewhere in my opinion.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> > *I didn't argue that god was a deity.*



Why the fuck is it digging a hole to deny I said what was claimed? Maybe you can find an emoticon showing a guy uncovering himself from a pile of bullshit dumped on him... that would be more appropriate. I never said a thing about a "deity" of any kind. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to use the fucking quote feature and show us the post where I said it, THEN you can post your hole digging icon. Unless you do this, you just look like a moron who hasn't read the thread.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Chalk one more up for the Boss!
> ...



Emily, on Page 1 of this thread, at the very top, is the OP. In the OP, I have laid out the case and argument for the thread title. Now, maybe things are different here, I'm still new, am I just supposed to copy and paste the OP over and over, until someone addresses the points made in it? I assumed people would actually READ the OP, and then post a reasoned response to the points made, that's usually how debate works everywhere else, are the rules and conditions different here? 

I have already told you, I am not interested in a debate about "what kind" of god exists. I have no interest in your Build-A-God game. I already have my own idea of god, I don't need to have others validate my idea. I made a thread to outline definitive proof that god exists. At this point, no one has refuted the points made. I'm still patiently waiting for that, but so far, we seem to have an abundance of chortling morons who like to proclaim themselves victorious without offering anything more than their opinions of me. The more I point this out and refuse to be derailed from the topic, the more angry and vitriolic they have become. I guess they aren't used to people standing up to their ridicule and not allowing their distractions to derail the topic.


----------



## hobelim (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> Emily, on Page 1 of this thread, at the very top, is the OP. In the OP, I have laid out the case and argument for the thread title. Now, maybe things are different here, I'm still new, am I just supposed to copy and paste the OP over and over, until someone addresses the points made in it? I assumed people would actually READ the OP, and then post a reasoned response to the points made, that's usually how debate works everywhere else, are the rules and conditions different here?
> 
> I have already told you, I am not interested in a debate about "what kind" of god exists. I have no interest in your Build-A-God game. I already have my own idea of god, I don't need to have others validate my idea. I made a thread to outline definitive proof that god exists. At this point, no one has refuted the points made. I'm still patiently waiting for that, but so far, we seem to have an abundance of chortling morons who like to proclaim themselves victorious without offering anything more than their opinions of me. The more I point this out and refuse to be derailed from the topic, the more angry and vitriolic they have become. I guess they aren't used to people standing up to their ridicule and not allowing their distractions to derail the topic.





Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.

You may indeed have had spiritual experiences, but why should anyone believe they were good ones? Some people claim to be hard core 'believers' filled with the Holy Spirit and then proceed to squeak and gibber incoherently about Jesus coming to take them up into the sky any minute.



If God is holy the unholy cannot perceive him because their unclean thoughts and impure actions build an impenetrable barrier between themselves and God and so you could provide what might seem like obvious conclusions from now till kingdom come but if everyone you are trying to convince is blind they will never comprehend or perceive anything and will be incapable of accepting those conclusions because acceptance could only happen through understanding..

What better proof of God and what other proof would ever suffice other than the actual presence of the living God?



All arguments aside, have you personally ever heard a single word from God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God (and not the delusions of an unrestrained imagination)..... and what did he say?


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.



It doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet your illogical qualification of *physical* evidence. The *spiritual* proof is overwhelming, and yes, I did define spirituality and gave examples from 70,000 years of human history, that spirituality has existed, and is inherent to humans as a species. So, the "proof" has been presented, you just reject it because you don't believe in spiritual evidence, but spiritual evidence is the only thing we can objectively analyze in the question of 'existence' regarding a spiritual entity. There is no 'physical' existence, if there were, it would be a 'physical' entity, not spiritual. 



> You may indeed have had spiritual experiences, but why should anyone believe they were good ones? Some people claim to be hard core 'believers' filled with the Holy Spirit and then proceed to squeak and gibber incoherently about Jesus coming to take them up into the sky any minute.



I never claimed that spiritual experiences were always good ones. I am not here to debate theological understandings. I happen to believe this is even more devout evidence that something must exist, because this persistent trait in mankind is so powerful and all-consuming. Through thousands of years, people have had no problem laying down their lives for the sake of their spiritual belief. People have endured centuries of persecution because they would not forsake their spiritual beliefs. 



> If God is holy the unholy cannot perceive him because their unclean thoughts and impure actions build an impenetrable barrier between themselves and God and so you could provide what might seem like obvious conclusions from now till kingdom come but if everyone you are trying to convince is blind they will never comprehend or perceive anything and will be incapable of accepting those conclusions because acceptance could only happen through understanding..



I've not said anything about a "holy" god. You are again confusing theology with spiritual existence of something greater than self. However, you are on the right track, the thread OP is "definitive" based on spiritual evidence, not physical. Those who refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence are unable to answer the question of spiritual existence. 



> What better proof of God and what other proof would ever suffice other than the actual presence of the living God?



Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief. 



> All arguments aside, have you personally ever heard a single word from God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God (and not the delusions of an unrestrained imagination)..... and what did he say?



Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread.


----------



## hobelim (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.
> ...





For the vast majority of those 70,000 years most peoples spirituality was nothing more than superstition. Sacrificing virgins to the sun god to insure a good harvest is hardly evidence of anything except ignorance.





Boss said:


> I've not said anything about a "holy" god. You are again confusing theology with spiritual existence of something greater than self. However, you are on the right track, the thread OP is "definitive" based on spiritual evidence, not physical. Those who refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence are unable to answer the question of spiritual existence.




Again you have failed to define spirituality as anything more than superstitious beliefs based on ignorance about reality and consequent deranged and illogical behavior.






Boss said:


> Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief.




If God is incorporeal, spirit, then him making his actual presence known would never be a physical manifestation and only that which is incorporeal in man, his conscious mind, could perceive him.




Boss said:


> Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread





I didn't ask you about any personal interpretations or beliefs about God.

I asked whether you ever seen or heard a word from the living God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God and not an overactive imagination, and what did you perceive and hear?


----------



## emilynghiem (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



1. Hi Boss that's fine if no one refuted your points, and I agree it is possible to prove something exists without defining it; but this has not resolved any issues. So is it clear that neither of your points is necessary or helpful to prove the content issue?
You have proven that these are not necessary. so great.

2. as for (a). your misinterpretation of what I am saying because I am NOT trying to BUILD God but BUILD a consensus on people's understanding of God which is different and (b). not needing anyone to validate your ideas

the whole reason people have not proven there is a God is we do not
agree we are talking about the same things

so yes, it IS helpful and/or necessary to align our beliefs we already have.
it's NOT about "validating your ideas" which of course are already true for you;
but showing how these translate or equate to something equivalent with someone's else's sytem or perspective

*Your ideas are already valid, but how do they relate or align with someone else's valid ideas?*
I am NOT saying that someone else has to "agree with you" that 3+3 = 6 for this to be true.
I am saying that someone who calls it "6" and someone who calls it "a half dozen" are talking about the SAME quantity.
Both statements are true and valid on their own, without anyone else endorsing that.

I hope this is clear so you do not misperceive or misportray my intent and process.

I hope you and Newpolitics can understand why it is necessary for proving things universally across as
diverse a population as the human race, to INCLUDE everyone's perspective, way of relating and frame of reference.

Boss you can define the proof or process for you, and that's fine.
But for other people they obviously need a different proof or different process.
Or else we'd be done by now just by going with what you said
Of course this is not enough, more is needed.

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

here let me try to spell it out more clearly: let's say we're trying to prove that
gravity exists and works a certain way, there are universal laws how this thing works
wherever it may come from

A. I am NOT trying to say let's arbitrarily define gravity using whatever people
think of and then try to prove or disprove it
B. I am going to each person in their respective context and
finding out how they experience this thing called gravity
whether they call it the FORCE or laws of attraction
They can believe in a flat earth and still perceive there is a force keeping
or pulling things down
They could believe it is some magical force pushing from above to keep thing down
Whatever
What we are looking for is whatever THAT person calls the same things
as what you and I call gravity

C. then we show how the different groups all follow the same concepts
even the flat earth people or the people who believe it some magical force or whatever

And we still align all these different groups to agree that we
all experience this thing, whether you call it GRAVITY or the FORCE etc.

D. last we can go into how does this thing really work
why in some cases do books stay on the shelf because of gravity
and other times they slide off to the floor because of gravity

we can talk about applications and uses of this gravity
so we can make practical use of it for common good purpose

E. and some people may still NOT call it gravity,
may still believe the earth is flat, may still NEVER follow the
physics and math that gives technical language for explaining this gravity
but we can all agree we are experiencing and using the same force
and where possible agree how to use and apply it for maximum benefit

F. also the same reasons people might have a hangup over reaching a consnesus
on Gravity, we might find here discussing God:
1. distrust of people's agenda, that you are trying to impose some foreign system for your own self-benefit and do not value or respect the given system of the people you are addressing
2. not using the same terms or having a hangup because of negative associations
with "other people or groups" that use those terms rejected by a different group
using their own terms
3. getting hung up on a conflict or contradiction along the way that could have been resolved to avoid throwing the rest of the proof process
for example, with the process of spiritual healing, many people point to cases that fail, and cite that as proof that it does not work; while the truly effective and safe methods and process of spiritual healing can explain both what causes it to fail or to work and how to correct the problems in cases that can be helped, so there is a way to explain both cases once you understand the process.
the analogy I make using gravity, is the books on the shelf.
If the shelf is slanted, then the books fall down.
If the shelf is level, then the books stay put.
So the same laws of gravity are at work in both cases, though the results are different.

With you and newpolitic, you have shown that your points so far
have not moved anyone any closer to a better understanding of what God is.

We have only demonstrated and proven that these points are not the issue.

Boss if you are only concerned with what you need to know God exists,
then that works for you, but what about everyone else.

I am interested in mapping out what everyone else needs, using groupings
to organize people in networks by those who follow the same patterns or systems
or similar ways of reasoning.

If this method works for you, then other people who need it will be included in your group.
But what about me, or Newpolitics or other people who aren't getting the same thing
you are out of this. We clearly need something else. So that is what I ask to explore.

There are only so many people, and so many religious or political groupings.
There are many variations of these, but enough cohesion between the
main groups that a consensus can be formed by reconciling points and putting
aside issues that are not necessary conditions on agreement on the main ideas.

And no this will  NOT be built by arbitrarily throwing around random defintions
but for this to have relevance, people will pick what makes sense and has
meaning to them. So I look forward to what you offer that I trust will be
helpful to many people who do not believe in the limited perceptions of God
causing so many conflicts out there. I agree we should avoid those problems!

Thank you Boss
Thank you Newpolitics
if you haven't given up on us yet -- please don't!
I really would like to work this out because
of how both of you are so discerning and articulate with your points.
if we can work this out, it will help other people to do the same.
so I think it is important to find out how to do that!


----------



## emilynghiem (May 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > RE: can we agree that "God" represents the infinite source of all goodness, life, love, and truth/wisdom in the world, whether this "God" is self-existent as a "God of being" or "creation/universe" itself, or had a beginning or steps in the process of realizing the universal laws or processes going on in the world.
> ...



Thank you DT, to his credit Boss did offer to focus on
metaphorical aspects of God and start a new thread.
can we focus on that? that seemed like a good lead to me!
people respond differently to different ppl and contexts.
if we deadlock here with Boss and Newpolitics not
getting past their points they both brought up,
I'm happy to try something else.

And other people brought up some points
too, so I am happy to explore that and see
if NP and Boss can jump into a different setup and go a different direction that gets somewhere more productive. willing to try anything thanks DT

and I think the stodginess is due to being jumped on and wary
of atheist opponents trying to set theists up to fail. so if we
remove that factor, that stodginess will also be reduced over time.

NP is also used to being set up for circular arguments
and is not used to the idea there is a way around that.
let's try shall we? thanks for your support and understanding
of people and their ways. the more honest and open we are about
our limitations and personal biases, and the less we judge or jump on each
other for them, the process will open up to better angles and insights
and will get easier and easier. we are all human and need to release
stress, which won't suddenly happen overnight but over time as we practice
interacting with each other in new ways and new contexts. just trial and error!


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

hobelim said:


> For the vast majority of those 70,000 years most peoples spirituality was nothing more than superstition. Sacrificing virgins to the sun god to insure a good harvest is hardly evidence of anything except ignorance.
> 
> Again you have failed to define spirituality as anything more than superstitious beliefs based on ignorance about reality and consequent deranged and illogical behavior.



And all of these speculations you are making, they are recorded where and by whom? What we have evidence of, is human spiritual belief. How that may have manifested itself into various "superstitious" actions, is not relevant to this discussion of existence. In a sense, we can say that all religious belief is superstitious in nature, that's why it's totally not important to include it in the evaluation of whether a spiritual god exists. These are only examples of man dealing with a spiritual entity they can't understand. 

The fact remains, as long as humans have been human, they have been spiritually connected. Superstition is often confused with spirituality, but they are simply not the same. We can observe modern history of man, and see a precipitous drop in purely superstitious beliefs, as science has evolved to explain things. With spirituality, we see no drop-off whatsoever, as many humans are spiritual now as ever. Over thousands and thousands of years, this spiritual attribute in man has not changed. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well, because if you had physical proof of God, then God would no longer be non-physical. There would be no spirituality or need for such a thing, and we wouldn't be discussing spiritual existence, because there would be no such thing. The ONLY proof that will EVER suffice to prove a spiritual entity, is spiritual proof. To expect physical proof is illogical, just as illogical as someone who would reject physical proof to cling to spiritual belief.
> ...



Presence means what? Because, god's spiritual presence has been known for ages, and testified to by BILLIONS of people, many who gave their lives for acknowledging their spiritual beliefs. That's one of the main points of my argument, you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and demand physical evidence of a spiritual entity. Here, you seem to vainly be implying that IF this spiritual entity is real, "he" should at least show you a hologram or something, so that you can believe in "him." Why do you believe spiritual god cares whether you believe or not? Why would any spiritual entity be inclined to manifest itself in physical form? Tell ya what, why don't you manifest yourself as a spiritual entity and go make these illogical complaints to god? 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretations of god. I understand the strategy here, I get that you want to turn the thread into a debate of theological beliefs and incarnations of god, because those are fun to pick apart. I get that! But I have been fairly defiant on this, I am not going to discuss my personal beliefs in god here, I will be happy to do so in another thread
> ...



Again, my personal experience is not the issue here.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 2, 2013)

Boss: what do you think of the idea of proving that forgiveness
has a positive effect on people? whether this is mental/phsyical in the brain cehmistry
or it is "spiritual" 
Can we prove the same healing process works, and has measurable effects on 
healing the mind body and human realtions
**regardless*** if people call it physical/human chemistry or spiritual?
how about that approach?

without depending on any concept that it is necessarily spiritual?
is that cool or what?



Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing in your OP qualifies as proof of anything other than the reasoning for your own beliefs. You fail to define spirituality or what exactly your spiritual evidence is, consequently you have not provided any evidence or proof for anything.
> ...



OK Boss I think you are trying to respect the limits of this thread.
Please start a new thread or can I start one and invite you in to answer? is that better?


----------



## S.J. (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


We have a winner!

Congratulations, Boss.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



SJ, I wouldn't step in here. Your worse at debate than boss. For a while, I actually thought you two were the same person. The idiocy here is eerily reminiscent of you.


----------



## S.J. (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Funny you should say that, because this debate ended the same way our's did.  You failed to make your case, and resorted to name calling and personal attacks, then said you were done debating.  Boss kicked your sorry ass.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Obviously you are going to stick up for your team. If you think boss won this, then you two deserve eachother. Maybe start another Ray Comfort/ Kirk Cameron or Eric Hovind/ Sye Bruggengate duo and become the laughing stock of the YouTube community?


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

Emily, I won't re-quote your whole post, too much... but here are a few things I want to respond to:



> the whole reason people have not proven there is a God is we do not
> agree we are talking about the same things
> 
> so yes, it IS helpful and/or necessary to align our beliefs we already have.
> ...



I have stated in the OP, the reason proving god is difficult. It is because some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence, and demand physical proof of a spiritual entity. These people generally lack the understanding that "existence" means anything other than physical existence, because this is all they recognize. To understand spiritual existence, you first have to accept spiritual evidence and believe in a spiritual realm. If my argument were: Definitive proof that a physical god exists... I have failed to prove that. I can't prove that. If I said: Definitive physical proof that god exists... I have also failed. But for anyone willing to evaluate spiritual evidence, it is overwhelming, absolute, irrefutable, incontrovertible, and definitive. 



> With you and newpolitic, you have shown that your points so far
> have not moved anyone any closer to a better understanding of what God is.



It doesn't have anything to do with my points, it has to do with NP not accepting spiritual evidence. As you can see, I have not been able to convince him to, and I predict I won't ever. Also, I am not trying to move anyone closer to a better understanding of what god is, I only presented an argument to definitively prove that god exists. I'm deliberately trying to avoid a debate on what god is, because people's opinions vary greatly on that topic. We need not define it to evaluate existence. 



> Boss if you are only concerned with what you need to know God exists,
> then that works for you, but what about everyone else.



Let's imagine you are a science teacher, and you end up in some obscure place where the children have all been taught spiritual understandings for the things which happen in the universe, and this is all they know... You start to try and teach them about climate, how clouds are formed, rain etc... and they just look at you like you grew another head, and say, but that's impossible, god made it happen! So you go to your principle and try to explain the problem, and he gives you the same look... are you crazy, emily? We all KNOW that god makes the rain and controls the climate, what's this 'meteorologist' stuff you're spewing? So you go to the school board, and the same thing happens. What can you do, as a science teacher, to teach these people legitimate science, if they refuse to accept physical principles of science?

That's kind of what we're facing here in reverse, people who have completely closed their minds to spirituality. They don't recognize it, they refuse to think about things in those terms. Spiritual evidence means not a thing to them, because they don't believe in spirituality. They are consumed by the material world and material things, physical presence, physical existence, and that's all they understand. So when someone talks about spiritual existence, they dismiss it immediately because of lack of physical evidence to support it. You can't ever change that kind of mind, it is CLOSED. 

I was concerned with presenting an ironclad case for definitive proof that god exists, and I think I did that. Much of the conclusive and definitive evidence is spiritual in nature, and others might not believe in spiritual evidence, but that's not my problem.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2013)

> Obviously you are going to stick up for your team.



Ah... so this is a "team" thing for you? You're one of THOSE people! So now, this means, in another totally unrelated threat topic, you will automatically "reject" whatever opinion I have, because you recognize me as the enemy of your "team?"  And even if we happen to agree on something, it won't matter, you'll only begrudgingly acknowledge that, because I am on the "other team."  

Nice.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Obviously you are going to stick up for your team.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Give it up dude. You failed.


----------



## S.J. (May 2, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


I'm familiar with your debate tactics.  You start out trying to dazzle everyone with your "intellectual prowess" (cough).  Then, when that doesn't work, you move to ridicule, then name calling and personal insults to rattle your opponent, accusing them of being less intelligent than you.  Then, when you can't escape the fact that you're losing, you proclaim your opponent not worthy of debate.  I thought Boss handled you skillfully throughout the debate, while you steadily deteriorated into a whiny child who didn't get his way.  You lose.


----------



## newpolitics (May 2, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Okay!


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Obviously you are going to stick up for your team.
> ...



Man, if I ever believed I had failed to a loser like you, I'd be searching for razor blades.

Oh, and I don't need to "give it up" because you already did that, when you stomped off in a huff a few posts ago and said you were done.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Look! Even your butt buddy SJ thanked you already! See, you two are a team! 

I have demonstrated that you are an asshat that is not worth debating. I only have limited patience with idiots who can't be honest.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

You gave up when you said you weren't trying to prove that god exists... Even those it is the title for this thread. Do you even know what a contradiction is? You should before you continue to embarrass yourself and your friends.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You gave up when you said you weren't trying to prove that god exists... Even those it is the title for this thread. Do you even know what a contradiction is? You should before you continue to embarrass yourself and your friends.



What you need to start doing is, using the "quote" feature to show us where I supposedly said these things that you keep claiming I have said. I think this makes about the dozenth time I have had to say... I did not say that! 

The thread title is a question, in case you missed that detail. The OP gives a well-explained and articulated answer to the question. As of yet, you have not refuted my answer. You keep attempting to manipulate the debate, then you try to manipulate my words, then you try to derail the thread, then you try to pretend that you have defeated me way back... it's really quite amusing. 

I guess you figure most people are twits like yourself, who won't bother to actually READ the thread, and they'll weigh in to lend support to their "team" here? Is that the idea? Just keep obfuscating and dodging the argument, refusing to stay on topic, refusing to address the points, hurling insults and ridicule, proclaiming yourself right, and waiting for the cavalry to arrive?


----------



## HUGGY (May 3, 2013)

A lot of words.  Much tap dancing.  Still...no god.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Look! Even your butt buddy SJ thanked you already! See, you two are a team!
> 
> I have demonstrated that you are an asshat that is not worth debating.



LOL... You have demonstrated you don't have much reading comprehension skill, but chortle well, and you are a terrible quoter. You've demonstrated that you are tenacious when it comes to trying to sabotage a thread or topic you can't debate. 



> I only have limited patience with idiots who can't be honest.



I think you should work on having more patience with yourself.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> A lot of words.  Much tap dancing.  Still...no god.



The only one tap dancing is newpolitics.... and maybe emily, if she gets the right beat. 

The OP answers the thread topic question, I stick by every word of it, and it hasn't been refuted. 

There will never be a god for you, because you do not recognize spiritual evidence. I can't prove god to you any more than you can prove climate to someone who believes god controls it. You and they, are in the same boat of ignorance, refusing to acknowledge logical evidence.

In the case of a spiritual entity, logical evidence must be spiritual, not physical. It is illogical to expect or assume physical evidence of something not physical. Yet that is the only evidence you will accept, since you don't believe in spiritual evidence.


----------



## S.J. (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of words.  Much tap dancing.  Still...no god.
> ...


You might as well be talking to the wall.  These jerks are incapable of thinking outside the box.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

S.J. said:


> You might as well be talking to the wall.  These jerks are incapable of thinking outside the box.



I am seeing that. A little bit stunned at the total lack of depth so far. It seems there is a contingent of posters who think, popping in and popping off a disagreeable retort, is all the 'debate' we need. Just the mere fact they blessed us with their 'wisdom', is enough that we should just accept it and move on.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 3, 2013)

Much of the 'problem' here is the lack of definition and refusal to accept inherent human attributes. The realities of consciousness, the mind and how perceptions and learning work have not been sufficiently integrated into the calculations. Emotion and desire to believe are very great and, for objectivity and accuracy, must be mastered.

If you love your mother, you don't need the world to confirm it. If everyone says she doesn't exist and the love you feel is imaginary, you have yourself as judge of which is the 'reality'; what your perceptions carry into your mind of what the world says or what you perceptions transmit to your interior about the love of your mother.

Belief is choice. Accepting facts or not is a choice. In fact, deciding what facts are is a choice. But it all goes on inside one, not outside anywhere. Even if it does go on 'outside', that is irrelevant. The only thing one truly possesses is one's interior world.


----------



## edthecynic (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... _you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy._ I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity.* By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with.* Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you have not proven the existence of God. All you have proven is physical people are spiritual. The physical people exist first and from them comes the spiritual.

To prove the existence of God you must prove that the spiritual precedes the physical. That you assume without proof. An assumption is not a definitive proof!


----------



## HUGGY (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > You might as well be talking to the wall.  These jerks are incapable of thinking outside the box.
> ...



That's it pretty much.  Some of you remind me of a child that needs to be put to bed.  You think up every excuse you can imagine to avoid the inevitable.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> .
> 
> So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!




Here. You state definitively that you have proof that.... GOD EXISTS.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > I agree... and if my OP simply said... "GOD EXISTS!" then you'd have a point. However, anyone who has the intellect to read the OP in this thread, can clearly see I have laid out a case, with numerous points, which you have yet to address or refute. You have instead, nonsensically repeated that "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!"
> ...


----------



## there4eyeM (May 3, 2013)

We might also point out that this question has not been satisfactorily resolved in hundreds of years of discussion amongst the world's greatest minds. How likely is it that it will be proved for the first time here?


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> ! I didn't mention Einstein to scare you, but rather, because Einstein proved things can certainly be shown to exist, without defining them. I have presented several other physical examples, like the inside of black holes, which we know, do exist, but can't define. You even presented evidence that we know when thought exists because of electrical impulses in the brain, yet the thought is undefined. So even an abject idiot like yourself, can grasp this concept. Things can exist, and we can prove they exist, without ever having to define them.
> !



When talking about the physical universe, you don't use definitions to talk about things. Things are defined by themselves, of themselves. Is there a definition for the  Rocky Mountains other than its attributes and location? No. Definitions are formulated A priori (I know you don't know this term, so look it up) . A posteriori knowledge is not gotten through definition but through observation, therefore, you are making a category error as I've already pointed out, when you talk about "defining the inside of a black hole." This is non-sensical. I've already pointed this out to you, but you are too dumb to understand this. Einstein did not so this either, and you haven't shown any examples. You tried with black holes, but all you said was, "we don't know what was in black holes, so couldn't define it... Yet we know it exists, so there!" We know the inside of a black hole exists, because the outside of it exists. This is LOGIC. Something can not have an outside and  not an inside. Are you suggesting that something can have an outside but not an inside? please demonstrate this. If you can not, then you concede this point about not needing to define something, and must define your god. I have said all of this ready, and you have failed to respond to ANY of it. You simply resort to personal attacks or changing the subject.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element.



I think this one is my favorite.

"I never said there is no physical proof of X's existence. I said there is no physical proof of X."

Another blatant contradiction. X can not exist without its existing, or its being in a condition of existence. So what you really just said is:

"I never said there is no physical proof of X. I said there is no physical proof of X."

ROFLMAO.

This is why I don't want to debate you. Because you are an idiot who thinks he is smarter than everyone. All I have done is clean up your logical messes only to have you deny it like a little kid. Grow up and come back when your brain has done a little growing.


----------



## LittleNipper (May 3, 2013)

Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord.  Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself.  Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.


----------



## HUGGY (May 3, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> *Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator*. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. *Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved*. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord.  Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself.  Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.



Nonsense.  You have obviously never invented anything.

As in nature a need arises which is recognizd and filled.  Sometimes the need is forseen.

There is no "divine" intervention.  There are only gaps that develope or will develope and in nature nitches open up and they are exploited.  Sometimes these nitches are forced as in the act of survival.  

Many scientific discoveries are accidents that are observed while the "inventer" is doing something entirely different as in the "discovery" of X-Rays..AKA radioactivity... and Rubber.


----------



## hobelim (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > For the vast majority of those 70,000 years most peoples spirituality was nothing more than superstition. Sacrificing virgins to the sun god to insure a good harvest is hardly evidence of anything except ignorance.
> ...




evidence of spiritual belief is not evidence of anything spiritual. Does the fact that people used to worship trees prove the existence of God or spirituality or is it evidence that people were superstitious?





Boss said:


> How that may have manifested itself into various "superstitious" actions, is not relevant to this discussion of existence. In a sense, we can say that all religious belief is superstitious in nature, that's why it's totally not important to include it in the evaluation of whether a spiritual god exists. These are only examples of man dealing with a spiritual entity they can't understand.





Don't you even have an inkling how absurd it seems to me for you to agree that religion is superstition but not relevant to the discussion whether the God of their superstitious beliefs exists.





Boss said:


> The fact remains, as long as humans have been human, they have been spiritually connected. Superstition is often confused with spirituality, but they are simply not the same. We can observe modern history of man, and see a precipitous drop in purely superstitious beliefs, as science has evolved to explain things. With spirituality, we see no drop-off whatsoever, as many humans are spiritual now as ever. Over thousands and thousands of years, this spiritual attribute in man has not changed.




You might as well have said that mans ability to confound himself is unchanged. Confusing yourself and driving each other insane  with superstitious gobbledygook is not a spiritual experience.








Boss said:


> Presence means what? Because, god's spiritual presence has been known for ages, and testified to by BILLIONS of people, many who gave their lives for acknowledging their spiritual beliefs. That's one of the main points of my argument, you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and demand physical evidence of a spiritual entity. Here, you seem to vainly be implying that IF this spiritual entity is real, "he" should at least show you a hologram or something, so that you can believe in "him." Why do you believe spiritual god cares whether you believe or not? Why would any spiritual entity be inclined to manifest itself in physical form? Tell ya what, why don't you manifest yourself as a spiritual entity and go make these illogical complaints to god?





the conscious mind, thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, feelings, emotions, dreams, suffering pain joy love etc etc, are all incorporeal in nature. If God is incorporeal communicating with the human mind would not be a physical manifestation. Jesus said ' Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God. "In his day people thought the seat of consciousness was in organ of the heart. We now know that conscious is seated in the brain. Pure of heart means pure of mind.



]





hobelim said:


> I didn't ask you about any personal interpretations or beliefs about God.
> 
> I asked whether you ever seen or heard a word from the living God in your entire life and if so how do you know it was God and not an overactive imagination, and what did you perceive and hear?







Boss said:


> Again, my personal experience is not the issue here.




yes it is. If you claim to have proof of God but have never heard from him in your entire life, how could you possibly lead anyone else to him? How could you make such a c;claim without validation from God? Isn't important to seek proof for the truth of what you claim?



You are trying to offer your belief as proof. You might as well be trying to convince people to believe in the easter bunny because people celebrate easter.


try again.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Sorry, but you have not proven the existence of God. All you have proven is physical people are spiritual. The physical people exist first and from them comes the spiritual.
> 
> To prove the existence of God you must prove that the spiritual precedes the physical. That you assume without proof. An assumption is not a definitive proof!



1. You are assuming physical came before spiritual.

2. You are not accepting or acknowledging the spiritual evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I never said there is no physical proof of a thought's existence, I said there is no physical proof of a thought, because a thought is not a physical element.
> ...




How about stop the fucking chortling and preening and show us PROOF of a thought? 
(Electric impulses in the brain are not a thought, they are electric impulses.)


----------



## LittleNipper (May 3, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > *Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator*. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. *Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved*. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord.  Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself.  Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.
> ...



There is HUMAN CREATIVE intervention, which sometimes  produce accidental design. In nature there is DIVINE intervention but that purpose is without accident, only divine will.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It appears my posts are being ignored.

The proof of a thought is that it is thought - by someone. It has no external existence. It needs none to exist. It exists in the universe because it exists in a human. 

This is our magic and our mystery. We create from no thing.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

hobelim said:


> evidence of spiritual belief is not evidence of anything spiritual. Does the fact that people used to worship trees prove the existence of God or spirituality or is it evidence that people were superstitious?



If people worshiped trees, or sacrificed daughters in volcanoes, only confirms they had strong spiritual belief in something greater than self. How that spirituality manifested itself into various human actions, is not relevant. 

Evidence of spiritual belief alone, is not proof. It's the fact that this spirituality in humans has been present since humans were human, and through millenniums of time, people have endured brutal persecutions and death to maintain their spirituality. This proves that spirituality is fundamental to the species. If not, Darwin says it would have been discarded in favor of more desirable attributes, regarding survival of the species. 

Spirituality is not superstition, I've already covered this. Superstition fades with knowledge and understanding, spirituality remains. It may rub religious people the wrong way, but I've already said, many religious beliefs are superstitious in nature. We have to "obey god" or we pay a consequence, "go to hell." Not much different than; we have to "avoid black cats" or we pay a consequence, "bad luck." But the fact that man can be superstitious about their spirituality, only reinforces the power and importance of spirituality to humans. 



> Don't you even have an inkling how absurd it seems to me for you to agree that religion is superstition but not relevant to the discussion whether the God of their superstitious beliefs exists.



That's exactly why I have avoided the argument over THEIR god or MY god, or YOUR god. I've not argued that I can prove existence of any particular manifestation of god. I've not argued that god is a deity, omnipotent, creator of everything, or any other attribute man may assign to god. Those are irrelevant to whether god exists. Michael Jackson existed... some people think he was brilliant and talented, some people thought he was sick and perverted, some people loved and admired him, some people were jealous of him, some people hated his guts... but he still existed. Of course, he existed in the physical world, and had a physical existence, and god is spiritual, with spiritual existence, but existence is not dependent on description.



> the conscious mind, thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, feelings, emotions, dreams, suffering pain joy love etc etc, are all incorporeal in nature. If God is incorporeal communicating with the human mind would not be a physical manifestation. Jesus said ' Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God. "In his day people thought the seat of consciousness was in organ of the heart. We now know that conscious is seated in the brain. Pure of heart means pure of mind.



God has been incorporeal communicating with people for 70,000 years. Billions have testified to this connection and confirmed it. So what was your point again?



> yes it is. If you claim to have proof of God but have never heard from him in your entire life, how could you possibly lead anyone else to him? How could you make such a c;claim without validation from God? Isn't important to seek proof for the truth of what you claim?



I didn't claim to have proof of any specific incarnation of god. I presented a case for definitive proof that god exists. The "definitive proof" requires you to recognize spiritual evidence, and if you are unable to do that, you can't comprehend the evidence. 

And... I am not here to "lead you to" anything. This is a religious philosophy, and doesn't have a thing to do with whether god exists. I also never said that I have never heard from god, I said my personal experience has nothing to do with the existence of god. 



> You are trying to offer your belief as proof. You might as well be trying to convince people to believe in the easter bunny because people celebrate easter.
> 
> try again.



No, that's exactly what I've spent most of the thread correcting pinheads about. I am not arguing for the existence of MY version of god. As proof, I offered the following argument;

1. Spiritual evidence has to first be acknowledged before evaluating existence of the spiritual. Depending on physical evidence alone, is completely illogical for a spiritual entity with no physical attributes. 

2. 70,000 years (at least) of intrinsic and inherent human connection to spirituality. Testimony from billions and billions of people spanning all of human existence, that something greater than self is present, in a spiritual existence. 

3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.

4. Observation of behavior in any living species, and the fact that no living thing just does things for the entirety of it's existence, with no fundamental reason or purpose. It's actually illogical to conclude spirituality serves no purpose. 

Several posts later, I also added another point. Occam's razor is a theory regarding logic and evaluation of questions. newpolitics claims it can only be used on physical science and questions of physical nature, but I find nothing in the theory which states this, and if it applies to logic regarding physical questions, it applies to logic regarding spiritual questions as well. Occam's would deduce, the most logical and simplest explanation for this profound and inseparable human attribute of worship, is because something actually exists. 

No one has presented a suitable refutation of this argument. Most of the thread has been devoted to attempts to derail and distract from the argument. Several people continue to miss the point that "definitive proof" relies on your ability to comprehend spiritual evidence. I can't force you to try and argue the points I made, in fact, I don't blame you for not attempting to. However, I really thought that someone would at least make an effort here.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Like god... like spirituality!  THANK YOU!!


----------



## edthecynic (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but you have not proven the existence of God. All you have proven is physical people are spiritual. The physical people exist first and from them comes the spiritual.
> ...


You provided proof of physical people being spiritual thus proving the physical precedes the spiritual. 

You provided no proof of the spiritual preceding the physical to acknowledge  or accept.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> 3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.



Your ignorance of Darwin and evolution in general is palpable. Birds still have genes in their DNA for producing teeth. Those genes are recessive in the majority of birds but they still appear for a few.






Birds have not "discard[ed] traits which are not conducive to survival". Instead they have adapted to where they no longer need them. But if the need for teeth proved useful once again any of their offspring who had them would survive while those without them not survive. In this way teeth would be common while toothless beaks would not. 

You are fallaciously assuming that there is some "survival benefit" to spirituality. We still have the ability to climb trees but we don't. Does this mean that the ability to climb trees must be "discarded" since it is no longer needed for "survival"?


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You need to take a logic class. Proof of physical people being spiritual does not prove physical precedes anything. Did the earth not exist until humans were here too?


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.
> ...



You are the one who is misinterpreting me, and misapplying Darwin. 

The endless trail of dead human bodies through history, who were killed because they refused to forsake their spiritual faith, is certainly NOT conducive to their survival. If this spiritual connection were an unimportant attribute, it would have disappeared thousands and thousands of years ago. If your birds with teeth had encountered a period of time where the teeth posed a threat to survival of the species, like spirituality often has, then I surmise the birds would have discarded teeth, for the sake of preservation. Darwin supports me on this.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ironic!



> The endless trail of dead human bodies through history, who were killed because they refused to forsake their spiritual faith, is certainly NOT conducive to their survival. If this spiritual connection were an unimportant attribute, it would have disappeared thousands and thousands of years ago.



Your grasp of evolution is laughable. The survival of the entire human race did not depend upon faith in any deity. (If it did none of us would be here.) You are attempting to make a tenuous connection where none exists. Are you going to claim that the Neanderthals died out because they did not believe in God? Because that has as much credence as the rest on your nonsense.



> If your birds with teeth had encountered a period of time where the teeth posed a threat to survival of the species, like spirituality often has, then I surmise the birds would have discarded teeth, for the sake of preservation. *Darwin supports me on this*.



Your ill-educated opinion does not match up with the facts.


----------



## HUGGY (May 3, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



What a silly point of view.  I've invented several good new products, tools mostly, and never felt any "hocus pocus" in the process.  You believers do cling bitterly to your fantasies.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> Technology is proof positive of Creation and a Creator. All the advancements of techology are directly the result of intelligent design. And intelligent design must have a designer. Technology has never advanced without a designer directly involved. Techology didn't advance of its own accord. In fact "inspired" has been used time and again in association with technological advances. The automobile didn't design or construct itself. The computer didn't come to be of its own accord.  Each advancement is the direct result of man's desire to make life easier/enjoyable/safer/rewarding for himself.  Likewise man has a purpose in the universe. He is here for a reason that is known only to God. And as God is creative, so too man is creative.



Technology's existence has nothing to do with god, nor corroborates its existence in any way.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## MaryL (May 3, 2013)

You know, this debate has been going on for years, and for all the PROOF, there is always a different interpretation. This debate is a waste of time. Chicken or the egg,  ad infinitum.  Its fun to debate and slam folks, but this isn't going anywhere. When GOD wakes up, waves his little red hat and whistles Dixie backwards   unarguably and without ANY ambiguity&#8230; untill then,  I have to wonder, if God does exist, why hide in the shadows?  Why the head games and ambiguity?


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Chortling means "laughing gleefully." I'm not sure why you think I'm laughing, unless it is at your sheer stupidity, but I am not showing this I text. So, I am not sure what the hell you are asking. Again, and after a blatant contradiction, you are being entirely nonsensical. 

As for the idea, that I am preening... No. I am pointing out that your reasoning ability is terrible, to offer credibility to the idea that you are not worth debating. You supply a blatant contradiction, and now are obfuscating around it.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Usually, the acronym "ROFLMAO" is synonymous with "laughing gleefully," idiot. 

Yes, you do need to offer some credibility to your ideas, that's for sure! 

Points are in the OP, should you choose at some time to debate them. Thanks


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Now, to address the evidence that thoughts exist. This does not require that we have show the contents of thoughts, simply that their activity is detectable. This is demonstrable, by machines such as fMRI machines, which correlate activity in the brain with Individual thoughts or emotions in response to some external stimuli, repeatedly and predictably. I was wrong to simply say "electric activity" since Neurological functioning is also chemically induced.  

Never mind me. I'm not a neuroscientist. Here's a study that proves this:

"Scientists have discovered how to read minds by scanning brain activity and reproducing images of what people are seeing  or even remembering.

Researchers have been able to convert into crude video footage the brain activity stimulated by what a person is watching or recalling."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/psychic-computer-shows-your-thoughts-on-screen/16006



This study confirms not only that thoughts are happening in the brain and are detectable as physical manifestations, but are decipherable to into actual information.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You still fail to address or tease apart your contradiction. Instead, you focus on me.

btw. How do you know I was "laughing gleefully?" ROFLMAO would not denote this. I could have been just.. Laughing. In no possible world could you cause me to laugh gleefully.

 You haven't presented anything in the OP, since you fail to define god, and you haven't convinced anyone that you don't need to define god.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


----------



## numan (May 3, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> When someone believes something, it's true.


I believe Americans are idiots.
.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You still fail to address or tease apart your contradiction. Instead, you focus on me.
> 
> btw. How do you know I was "laughing gleefully?" ROFLMAO would not denote this. I could have been just.. Laughing. In no possible world could you cause me to laugh gleefully.



Sorry, I am not going to continue to debate what "chortle" means. Whenever I use the word, it is to describe little snot-nose know-it-all punks like you, who pop their mouth off while laughing at the same time, as if they are completely confident with the moronic shit coming out of their mouths. LOL, ROFLMAO, LMAO, LMFAO, are all synonymous with chortling. 

Grow up, wipe your nose, get an education! 



> You haven't presented anything in the OP, since you fail to define god, and you haven't convinced anyone that you don't need to define god.



I actually did define god. It is a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually worship. Further definition is not required or needed to evaluate existence. I don't care if you are convinced of something logical, at this point, it would amaze the fuck out of me for you to be convinced of any sort of logic.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

MaryL said:


> You know, this debate has been going on for years, and for all the PROOF, there is always a different interpretation. This debate is a waste of time. Chicken or the egg,  ad infinitum.  Its fun to debate and slam folks, but this isn't going anywhere. When GOD wakes up, waves his little red hat and whistles Dixie backwards   unarguably and without ANY ambiguity untill then,  I have to wonder, if God does exist, why hide in the shadows?  Why the head games and ambiguity?



I know this debate has been going on for years, and guess what? It will continue to always go on, because there will always be people who do not believe in spirituality or accept spiritual evidence. 

Your last line is interesting: *When GOD wakes up, waves his little red hat and whistles Dixie backwards   unarguably and without ANY ambiguity untill then,  I have to wonder, if God does exist, why hide in the shadows?  Why the head games and ambiguity?*

Seems you have this notion that "god" has to be a human-like being, and that it should somehow "care" whether you, a human, acknowledges it. Or that it is playing head games and being ambiguous, in not revealing itself to you. And here's the thing, if "god" is supposed to be this old man with a white beard, living in the clouds, who gets mad because we don't do what he wants, then I am with you... I don't believe such a man physically exists in this universe. 

However, my mind is open to spiritual evidence and spiritual understanding. I realize, a spiritual entity does not have to possess physical attributes, or have evidence of physical presence. Nor is it required to have human feelings, emotions, or needs. It doesn't have to want us to worship it, or need to punish us if we don't. It can still exist as a spiritual entity, without having these (frankly illogical) characteristics. 

But then...  I can accept spiritual evidence.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You still fail to address or tease apart your contradiction. Instead, you focus on me.
> ...



Oh, so now you are defining god? Your a fucking joke. This is why debating you is pointless.


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.



Was your point that you are a moron? If so, glad I could help prove it! 

You DID say that I had "simply said god exists" and that's where you introduced Bloo-Bloo... the Imaginary God of Morons. 

I've already corrected your false assertion, I did indeed define god, and repeated the definition to you twice, but still you are claiming I haven't defined god. Pay attention: "God" in this argument, is the metaphoric representation of whatever humans worship spiritually. That now makes the third time I have defined god for you. It may not be what you wanted, because it doesn't give you a specific incarnation of god to bash, in order to derail the thread, but it's all the definition needed to evaluate existence, as articulated in the OP.

_[For those who haven't yet read the OP, please take a moment to do so. It's just over 5 paragraphs, and lays out the argument clearly. This thread has grown huge, and most of it is full of newpolitics kitty turds and obfuscation. The argument presented in the OP has not been addressed by this idiot, he just wants to troll the thread to death, and he seems pretty hell-bent on doing that, despite my efforts.] _


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

> Oh, so now you are defining god? Your a fucking joke. This is why debating you is pointless.



No, I defined god with emily back on page 1.  Of course, you have proven you aren't reading the thread or what I post, because you keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that haven't been said. 

debating me is pointless, if by "debate," you mean, derailing my thread and trapping me in an argument  I never made. You may as well give up.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.
> ...



Good one... really? Are you in second grade? You have gotten almost everything wrong about what I've said so far. My point was as I explained in the quoted post above, clearly, yet somehow you've gotten that wrong even though its right in front of your face. My introduction of Bloo-Bloo had nothing to do with you saying "god exists," which again, I never said (show me). It was to demonstrate how non-sensical god is if you don't define it.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You have proved my point for me. Again, I never said you simply you proclaimed god's existence without some kind poor attempt at justification, I said that you failed to define god (which makes your argument non-sensical). Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and continually misconstrue what I am getting at.
> ...



If you have defined god three times, then why did you repeatedly claim that you don't need to define something in order to argue its existence, even attempting to cite Einstein and black holes as examples, all the while complaining about people asking you to define god. I KNOW you remember this, yet are acing like none of this took place. I think you are schizophrenic.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

^again, for the fourth time, you are contradicting yourself


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Because you were demanding a specific and detailed explanation of a particular incarnation of god, and I refused to give that to you. This is what you were arguing that we needed to "define" before we could evaluate existence, and I rejected your premise with the support of Mr. Einstein as well as black holes. Then you started some silly shit about Bloo-Bloo, and insisted I hadn't defined god. On and on this has gone, while the thread OP gets buried further and further, but ya know what, skippy? People can still, very easily, click on the little number 1 at the top and bottom right of the page, and it will take them right back to the OP.  So your attempts to bury the argument will fail with most people who know how to navigate a forum. 

Now, yesterday, about this time, actually, you proclaimed that you were finished debating with me. This was after you implied that S.J. and myself, were on some sort of "team" and revealed this whole forum is about "teams" and who is on whose side, from your perspective. But now, today, here you are again, rehashing the same shit from yesterday, making the same false claims, presenting the same bullshit, and NOT debating the topic. 

I can't stop you from being a moron, you are free to continue as much as you please. I can't stop you from spewing lies and distortions about what I've said, you seem committed to do that for your "team" in spite of my efforts to correct you. And I already know, by your own admission, that you have no intention of actually engaging me in meaningful dialogue here, so what I CAN do, is chose to ignore what you have to say from this point on, unless it pertains to the thread topic. I will now begin exercising that option.


----------



## newpolitics (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What team? Who am I with? You just make things up to sound good and make your opponent look bad. I came back because I don't like being mocked, and get into a defensive mode. I am about to leave this debate again (or try to) because this is all about your ego, and not any amount of truth that you can demonstrate, and this is isnt fun. you are creating all the rules, and then bending them when it suits you, kind of like a god... how ironic. The bottom line, is that you have not demonstrated anything to be true.


----------



## edthecynic (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your only proof you provided of the spiritual is from after the existence of physical people. You have provided no proof of the spiritual existing before physical people.

The fact that the physical Earth existed before physical people in no way proves the existence of the spiritual, let alone God. What "logical" system are you using?


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You've provided no proof physical preceded spiritual, nor have you proven spiritual was created by the physical. You've implied it, but you just can't prove it true. On the other hand, I have proven existence of god, it's laid out in the OP. You do need to be able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, but that's not really my problem.


----------



## hobelim (May 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > evidence of spiritual belief is not evidence of anything spiritual. Does the fact that people used to worship trees prove the existence of God or spirituality or is it evidence that people were superstitious?
> ...




The fact that people have held many different beliefs about God is not proof of spirituality or proof of God as your post claims. People have willingly suffered and died for a shot of heroin or a gold nugget. You have no proof of anything except that people are strange.





> You are trying to offer your belief as proof. You might as well be trying to convince people to believe in the easter bunny because people celebrate easter.
> 
> try again.





Boss said:


> No, that's exactly what I've spent most of the thread correcting pinheads about. I am not arguing for the existence of MY version of god. As proof, I offered the following argument;
> 
> 1. Spiritual evidence has to first be acknowledged before evaluating existence of the spiritual. Depending on physical evidence alone, is completely illogical for a spiritual entity with no physical attributes.




a belief in something greater than self is not proof of spirituality or spiritual evidence or proof of God. People have unrestrained and irrational imaginations. Some people are so illogical that they will believe that anything they can imagine must be possible and what they cannot perceive does not exist. Some people think that a belief is proof of what they believe. And you wondered what a pure mind has to do with anything.....





Boss said:


> 2. 70,000 years (at least) of intrinsic and inherent human connection to spirituality. Testimony from billions and billions of people spanning all of human existence, that something greater than self is present, in a spiritual existence.




you are confused. 70 thousand years of people killing each other, mutilating their penises,  and dying in holy wars in the name of their many  gods is not proof of a spiritual existence, just proof that people are strange.





Boss said:


> 3. Darwin's theory, which confirms that species have inherent traits which are fundamental to the species, and discard traits which are not conducive to survival...plus, the fact that millions of spiritual people have been persecuted and put to death over their spiritual faith.




Ugh. 

psst! the clock is still ticking. It seems that as time goes by more and more people are discarding superstitious religions and the charlatans that go with them in favor of a more rational approach to life. It won't be long before there won't be anyone left on earth gullible enough to believe that God can be eaten. Darwin and Jesus for that matter, would be proud at their efforts to evolve.




Boss said:


> 4. Observation of behavior in any living species, and the fact that no living thing just does things for the entirety of it's existence, with no fundamental reason or purpose. It's actually illogical to conclude spirituality serves no purpose.




Everything people do has no fundamental purpose if everyone is insane. People have been doing stupid things since time began and mostly because of irrational beliefs in things they cannot explain or understand. What you call the spiritual realm is just a realm of conscious thought based in the brain. If your thoughts are not coherent and rational, and they are not, then what you conclude as spiritual is just a figment of a very confused mind.




Boss said:


> Several posts later, I also added another point. Occam's razor is a theory regarding logic and evaluation of questions. newpolitics claims it can only be used on physical science and questions of physical nature, but I find nothing in the theory which states this, and if it applies to logic regarding physical questions, it applies to logic regarding spiritual questions as well. Occam's would deduce, the most logical and simplest explanation for this profound and inseparable human attribute of worship, is because something actually exists.
> 
> No one has presented a suitable refutation of this argument. Most of the thread has been devoted to attempts to derail and distract from the argument. Several people continue to miss the point that "definitive proof" relies on your ability to comprehend spiritual evidence. I can't force you to try and argue the points I made, in fact, I don't blame you for not attempting to. However, I really thought that someone would at least make an effort here.





You claimed to have proven that God exists but then say it doesn't matter when I asked you about your experiences or lack of them with God.. Your arguments are irrational. Your definitive proof is a joke. 


That you appear to really believe you have proven something is just proof that people with unrestrained imaginations are not that bright even if they are very strange.



congratulations!


----------



## Boss (May 3, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I can't demonstrate it to be true because you don't recognize spiritual evidence. No one ever can, that was pointed out in the OP. In order to establish definitive proof of a spiritual entity, we have to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence, and you refuse to accept that. I can't make you, dude. I don't have to, in order to establish definitive proof of spiritual existence. The evidence is there, plenty of it... it's overwhelming and irrefutable. You just refuse to open your closed mind to it, because you don't believe in spiritual evidence. 

For you, if there is not some kind of physical evidence, you simply can't process it. This is why the notion of god is nonsensical to you, and I understand that... if I didn't personally comprehend spirituality, I might feel the same way... an imaginary guy in the sky! roflmao! chortle-snort-chortle! 

But I happen to understand human-spiritual connection, so I accept spiritual evidence. This is the first prerequisite to comprehending my OP argument, which clearly does definitively prove a spiritual existence of god.


----------



## numan (May 4, 2013)

'
On the one hand....

*God is, after all, ultimate reality. And you can't argue that ultimate reality doesn't really exist. You can only ask what it's all  about.* 
---_Logan Pearsall Smith_

....and on the other hand....

*Shelley was an atheist.... He never trifled with the word "God"; he knew that it meant a personal First Cause, Almighty Creator, and Supreme Judge and Ruler of the Universe, and that it did not mean anything else, never had meant anything else, and never whilst the English language lasted would mean anything else. Knowing perfectly well that there was no such person, he did not pretend that the question was an open one, or imply, by calling himself an Agnostic, that there might be such a person for all he knew to the contrary. He did know to the contrary; and he said so.* 
---_George Bernard Shaw_

It all depends on what sort of thing you are talking about.

...of course, it is possible that "ultimate reality" is not a "thing". · · 
.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> On the one hand....
> 
> *God is, after all, ultimate reality. And you can't argue that ultimate reality doesn't really exist. You can only ask what it's all  about.*
> ...



Indeed, the implied incarnation of a deity is often made when we use the word "god." But this is why it is fundamentally important to not allow preconception to influence objectivity, when evaluating whether "god" exists. Once we become bogged down in this, we can't effectively evaluate anything, our judgement has been prejudiced, and we can't be objective in evaluating the evidence. 

I am presenting a clean objective case, based on both physical and spiritual elements, theories of reasoning and logic, and evaluation of knowledge we do have, to form a compelling case for my argument, that god does exist. What version? Don't know! It doesn't matter in the question of whether a spiritual entity exists. What matters, is ability to comprehend spiritual existence, and spiritual evidence of spiritual existence. 

Once you've met that criteria of open-mindedness, the evidence is stunningly clear. You have 70,000 years of a behavioral characteristic, present in a species since inception, which can't be beaten out, can't be driven out of hearts, can't be defeated or overcome, through thousands and thousands of years. Spirituality remains as strong in humans today as it ever has been. 

Occam's razor says the simplest explanations are best... the simplest explanation, god exists.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your "evidence" is that humans have always believed in some kind of spirituality. That doesn't mean that a spiritual realm actual exists. You can not make this logical leap. I used to be a theist, so I know what you are referring to when you try to say "spiritual evidence," and you are simply using the wrong label. "Special evidence" is simply ones subjective view of reality, whereby perceived unexplainable aspects of life are attributed to a spiritual realm, such as special emotions that one cherishes like love, and things which add meaning to ones life. However, it is  fallacy to actually attribute this to a real spiritual realm, simply because you can't establish that it isn't just delusion, misattribution of causes, or a placebo effect, explainable naturalistically.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

_*Everything people do has no fundamental purpose if everyone is insane.*_

Dang hobelim, I may have to use this as my sig line, do you mind?

...also, can you hook me up with some of that bud?


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

And again, you can not use Occam's Razor to arrive at god when looking humanities history with religious belief. This is a fallacy of attribution. Correlation does not imply causation. You have not been able to Establish that humans belief in the supernatural, is caused the supernatural, and Occam's Razor would necessitate that you not introduce an assumption (god) that is unfalsifiable, and about which nothing is known.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Your "evidence" is that humans have always believed in some kind of spirituality. That doesn't mean that a spiritual realm actual exists. You can not make this logical leap. I used to be a theist, so I know what you are referring to when you try to say "spiritual evidence," and you are simply using the wrong label. "Special evidence" is simply ones subjective view of reality, whereby perceived unexplainable aspects of life are attributed to a spiritual realm, such as special emotions that one cherishes like love, and things which add meaning to ones life. However, it is  fallacy to actually attribute this to a real spiritual realm, simply because you can't establish that it isn't just delusion, misattribution of causes, or a placebo effect, explainable naturalistically.



My evidence is NOT JUST that humans have always had profound spiritual connection, but that's a part of it. There is no leap of logic, except for your demand/expectation of physical evidence. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, billions and billions of people who fully believed in something spiritual that was worth dying for, because that's what happened to millions of them, through many thousands of years. It's not superstition, we ruled that out, because we would see spirituality in humans diminish greatly, just over the span of our lifetime, and that is not the case. As a species, we have consistently been spiritual, this has not deviated. So if we accept spiritual evidence, this becomes a no-brainer. 

The problem, is getting YOU to accept and comprehend spiritual evidence, and no... it's not code words. It's simply a matter of opening your mind to the existence of a spiritual realm, or (if you prefer) another dimension of the universe. If your mind will not accept anything but physical evidence, it is impossible to prove a spiritual existence of god, or anything else.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> And again, you can not use Occam's Razor to arrive at god when looking humanities history with religious belief. This is a fallacy of attribution. Correlation does not imply causation. You have not been able to Establish that humans belief in the supernatural, is caused the supernatural, and Occam's Razor would necessitate that you not introduce an assumption (god) that is unfalsifiable, and about which nothing is known.



Occam's razor says nothing of the sort, it is a theory about reasoning and logic, and has no set parameters regarding application. You want to steal it for physical science and not allow it to be used by the spiritual "team" as it were. But the theory is not just about science, it is about evaluation of hypothesis, and our hypothesis in this case, deals with the spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. If Occam's applies to physical logic, it should also apply to spiritual logic. You are the one who is assuming god is unfalsifiable, based on physical science, but god is falsifiable as a spiritual entity, in a spiritual existence. Just ask those who believe in a spiritual god.


----------



## G.T. (May 4, 2013)

If you wont even define what God is, you're proving nothing at all.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I pointed out that your own OP only proved the physical preceded the spiritual. Your own example was physical people doing something you claimed was spiritual. You gave no example of spirituality existing before the physical people because you have none. You have no example of spirituality prior to the existence of physical people.

Your OP has been debunked as proving nothing, especially the existence of a God. You need to prove the existence of spirituality before the existence of people to even begin to claim that spirituality is evidence of a God. That's your problem, not mine.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Your "evidence" is that humans have always believed in some kind of spirituality. That doesn't mean that a spiritual realm actual exists. You can not make this logical leap. I used to be a theist, so I know what you are referring to when you try to say "spiritual evidence," and you are simply using the wrong label. "Special evidence" is simply ones subjective view of reality, whereby perceived unexplainable aspects of life are attributed to a spiritual realm, such as special emotions that one cherishes like love, and things which add meaning to ones life. However, it is  fallacy to actually attribute this to a real spiritual realm, simply because you can't establish that it isn't just delusion, misattribution of causes, or a placebo effect, explainable naturalistically.
> ...



As per your first line: You are begging the question. Your evidence can't be that humans have always had profound spiritual connection, because this presupposes they are connected to something spiritual, which is what you are trying to prove. This is circular reasoning. You could say humans have always believed they had a spiritual connexion, but this is different. You can not start out assuming that which you are trying to prove. 

Nor can you say out spirituality "should have diminished" were it not tied to something "real." This is meaningless, because you are ignoring that religious belief, even if not tied to anything "spiritual," still confers an advantage for humans for reasons I've stated multiple times previously: religious belief acts as a social glue. This means increased cooperation. Considering that humans have survived through cooperation, which is only possible through our intellect and high social abilities, religious belief, whether or not there is a spiritual realm, is an advantage.

Actually, even if the existence of a spiritual realm were real,  it would not be have necessarily conferred an evolutionary advantage simply BECAUSE it is real, so your argument fails either way, unless this spiritual was performing miracles to keep humans safe or something, which is an ad hoc explanation with no evidence.

The pattern here is you making a lot if assertions with no evidence and a lot of logical fallacy, such as you begging the question above. Whenever people press you for evidence, you just accuse them of not being able to see your brand of evidence, when you haven't adequately defined spiritual evidence, or even shown it to exist. This is the arrogance in your approach, yet you feel fit in blaming everyone who doesn't see it your way. This is very immature. If you make a claim, you have to state what it is you are claiming and provide evidence. You have done neither.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > And again, you can not use Occam's Razor to arrive at god when looking humanities history with religious belief. This is a fallacy of attribution. Correlation does not imply causation. You have not been able to Establish that humans belief in the supernatural, is caused the supernatural, and Occam's Razor would necessitate that you not introduce an assumption (god) that is unfalsifiable, and about which nothing is known.
> ...



I never insinuated that Occam's Razor has any set parameters for its usage. I don't know why you keep on claiming this. You are straw-manning me in claiming that I am "stealing it for science." This is a cop-out. I explained, logically, that adding a supernatural assumption is ruled out by Occam's Razor itself, because it introduces an assumption which can not be explained. Thus, you lose explanatory scope.

"Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor
Variant(s): also Ock·ham's razor \&#712;ä-k&#601;mz-\
Function: noun
Etymology: William of Occam
Date: circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex * or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities*"

This last part is what is important. When dealing with something we are trying to understand, you do not appeal to something we don't understand. This defeats the purpose of trying to explain something. To restate Occam's Razor, of two theories with equal explanatory power, the simpler one is preferred. Your theory loses explanatory power when you introduce an unknown quantity. This is why you can not use Occam's Razor. It is NOT merely because you are appealing to the suprernatural, but because the supernatural represents an another question which would then need to be explained. Hence, your theory loses out to any theory which does not have this element.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light. 

This is what people in denial often do. They construct illogical paradigms, in order to support what they refuse to believe. By your reasoning, nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered it. Before that moment, it was an impossibility. We can also apply your reasoning with physical existence, where is your proof that we are in a physical existence, and this isn't all just a figment of imagination? 

...Hold on, I need to reload the bong!


----------



## Truthmatters (May 4, 2013)

Spirituality | Define Spirituality at Dictionary.com




spirituality
 &#8194; Use Spirituality in a sentence 








spir·it·u·al·i·ty
 [spir-i-choo-al-i-tee] Show IPA 

noun, plural spir·it·u·al·i·ties. 
1. 
the quality or fact of being spiritual. 

2. 
incorporeal or immaterial nature. 

3. 
predominantly spiritual character as shown in thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone. 

4. 
Often, spiritualities. property or revenue of the church or of an ecclesiastic in his or her official capacity.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe. By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical. Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe. Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.

The only kind of evidence is physical evidence. We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one. When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light.
> 
> This is what people in denial often do. They construct illogical paradigms, in order to support what they refuse to believe. By your reasoning, nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered it. Before that moment, it was an impossibility. We can also apply your reasoning with physical existence, where is your proof that we are in a physical existence, and this isn't all just a figment of imagination?
> 
> ...Hold on, I need to reload the bong!



You don't get to assume that a spiritual universe exists, and pass that off as fact. This is called a proof by assertion, and is completely unacceptable by any evidential standards. Nor can you make a claim, and then try to switch the burden of proof onto everyone else, as you have blatantly done above. You don't get to say "Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created." No, you need to first prove that a spiritual universe exists. Appealing to humans' inter-subjective experience over the course of 70,000 or a million years does not get you there.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove what you assume. You have connected the spiritual to physical people in your OP, now you have connected its "creation" to the creation of the universe by mere pontification.

And since it is you who connects the spirital to humans, so it is YOUR "reasoning" that nuclear fission didn't exist until man discovered "it," not mine. It can be proven that nuclear fission was never impossible and existed before man. The onus is on you to prove that the spiritual existed before "it" had a purpose to exist in the experience of man, as you claim.

It will take more than one bong for your double-speak to begin to make sense!


----------



## hobelim (May 4, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe. By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical. Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe. Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.
> 
> The only kind of evidence is physical evidence. We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one. When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.







LOL...case closed.

May the nonspecific metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually worship have mercy on his soul.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

Boss: Also, you seem to want to pass off Occam's Razor as of it were a mode of logical inference, which it is not. It is merely a method of eliminating competing hypothesis'. It does not replace deductive, inductive, or abductive reasoning. In trying to prove something scientifically, you must use deductive logic, which you have not done. This is another gaping hole in your attempt at reaching your conclusion about the source of human spirituality. You need to actually have evidence for the spiritual. Occam's Razor is not evidence. 

Even if you could eliminate a naturalistic  hypothesis via Occam's Razor, this doesn't prove that it is spiritual. You still need to deductively prove that a spiritual universe exists, without reference to anything but sound premises (evidence).  Eliminating a competing hypothesis doesn't make your hypothesis any more true. You have to actually show that your hypothesis is true. The only circumstance in which eliminating a competing hypothesis would necessarily make your hypothesis true would be if these two competing hypothesis' represented a true dichotomy. You haven't demonstrated a true dichotomy, therefore your attempt at using Occam's Razor to mean, necessarily, that a spiritual realm exists, fails. This is called using a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy, and is yet another gaping hole in your reasoning.


----------



## newpolitics (May 4, 2013)

hobelim said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe. By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical. Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe. Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.
> ...



Thank you, and amen.


----------



## onecut39 (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



Ridiculous!


----------



## HUGGY (May 4, 2013)

Spirituality.  The belief in spirits.  As human beings settled down from hunter gatherers to a trend towards agricultural based societies man's survival was more dependant upon unseen forces to succeed.  

Much of the endeavors of what humans did or attempted to do was unpredictable in thier outcomes.  Uncertainty was more likely than not.  People started to appeal to the "spirits" to assist in all manner of human activity.  "Gods" were assigned for general and specific catagories to appeal to.  Some people believed to be "seers" started to appear based on thier success in predicting the whims of the designated spirits.  

Naturally the seers that were lucky enough to guess the proper outcomes gained strength in thier communities and those whose predictions contradicted the desired outcomes lost credibility and were ignored as undependable .... or worse.  I would imagine disgruntled laymen killed many of these snake oil salesmen.

It is sad that those that cannot prove thier spiritual claims are not held to the standards of the ancient seers and punished for thier fraud.


----------



## numan (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with.


I think talking about "proof" enters into many philosophical quagmires. I think it would be better to be more modest and limit oneself to "evidence".



> As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual.  So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence,  since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical....Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.


I think you make a *very* important point here -- That there may be a Reality with characteristics very different from what we experience in time and space. Indeed, by trying to imagine entities which have characteristics the *diametrical opposite* to ordinary matter, one may begin to gain understanding of what spiritual reality is like.

No doubt the exercise will not carry us to the ultimate end of understanding spiritual reality, but it may carry us further than one might think at first glance.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 4, 2013)

If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final.  The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again.  The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver.  Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal.  Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"?  It had to come from somewhere.


----------



## Hollie (May 4, 2013)

S.J. said:


> If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final.  The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again.  The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver.  Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal.  Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
> Then the obvious question is "Where does the spirit come from and how did it get in the body"?  It had to come from somewhere.


You first need to define your terms regarding this "spirit" thing. Metaphysics and mysticism aside, this "spirit" you claim exists has no properties which can be quantified.


----------



## hobelim (May 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final.  The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again.  The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver.  Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal.  Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
> ...





I think its much more simple than that. 

Spirit is probably just the ancient word for what we describe as consciousness, just like their understanding of the function of the organ of the heart is what we understand to be the function of the brain.... soul is what they thought of as the mind.

Losing their soul would equate with losing their mind. A person whose soul was possessed by a demon would be a victim of mind control.

An unclean spirit would translate as a dirty mind. 

Nothing supernatural or mystical about any of it.


----------



## numan (May 4, 2013)

S.J. said:


> If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final.  The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again.  The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver.  Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal.  Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.


This comparison is inadequate. This "spirit" could be just the way the car works when all the parts of the car are put together in the right way to permit the efficient functioning of the car.

You might say that you could take the car apart, destroying its way of functioning, and then put it back together, and bingo! it is the same as it was before being disassembled.

This way of looking at things falls apart when applied to the body and the way it functions. The animal body is incredibly complex; at death, it immediately starts to disintegrate, and it would very quickly become impossible to put it back together in any way that even remotely resembled its state before death.

Moreover, the irreducible uncertainty inherent in all quantum mechanical phenomena guarantees that, even in principle, the body could never be reconstructed _precisely_ as it existed before death.

In the physicalist view, there is nothing "extra" added to the car other than its various parts and the way they are put together. 

You may object that it is absurd to imagine a car without a driver as a part of the way it works, but this is also invalid. We are very close to designing cars driven by complex electronic computers which can perform all the functions of a human driver -- indeed, perhaps perform them better than could a human.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final.  The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again.  The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver.  Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal.  Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
> ...


It doesn't have physical properties because it isn't physical.  I'm not going to play that game of "defining" a non-physical entity so you can cause a distraction by picking apart the definition.  I would think that people who claim to have scientific minds would not be so narrow-minded as to think that because you can't see something and define it, that it couldn't exist.  Science is supposed to be open to all possibilities, is it not?
Your mind seems to be sealed shut.


----------



## numan (May 4, 2013)

.
Instead of jumping immediately to the question of "God", it might be useful to begin with the baby-step of considering how an immaterial entity might differ from, and interact with, a material entity.

One of the conundrums of European philosophy is: How can an immaterial Form act on a material substance?

This question reveals a complete misunderstanding of an "immaterial Form". It presupposes a tinge of materiality still adhering to the Form. Forms are *nothing* like matter: almost every property of a Form is diametrically opposed to the properties of matter.

Yet Forms and material existence are also mutually dependent; each appears in the world supported by the other. Only insofar as a wheel approaches circularity is it said to "exist" as a wheel. A cart-driver woud certainly refuse to put any non-circular object on the axle of his cart. On the other hand, circularity is certainly dependent on sensible objects in order to be manifested.  Circularity does not "exist," but it is _manifested_ by things which do exist. Yet again, things which "exist" do so only through an immense concatenation of Forms. In physics, for example, when we try to understand what a material object is,  we find that it dissolves into a warp of electric fields on a woof of magnetic forces. These, in turn, when subjected to analysis, reveal new "existences" and new Forms: elementary "particles," units of "action," and quantum fields. Each time we try to tease out what is before our eyes, we find that it disappears to reveal a new content functioning through new Forms.  

Forms are eternal and unchanging: there is no difference between a circle today and a circle a billion years ago. Things that we say "exist," on the other hand, are subject to any number of causal interactions which may alter or destroy them. They are never exactly the same from moment to moment. A Form, however, does not undergo interaction, it *is* interaction!  When conditions permit it to operate,  a Form springs forth fully-blown from the brow of Zeus---and then vanishes away when conditions end its functioning.***

Forms are unaffected by space and time.  All Forms are present everywhere; but in any particular phenomenon, only some Forms are predominate.  Gravity determines that "circularity" strongly predominate in the physical shape of the Sun --- the function "squareness" is almost entirely absent. Yet "squareness" also is important to the nature of the Sun; for example, in determining the time it takes for photons to percolate from the center of the Sun to the surface in their "random walk" through the mass of the Sun.
_____________________________________

*** This is not strictly true---_first, it may leave a causal residue which affects the future history of phenomena;_ second, no function or force ever ceases completely; we say that it ceases when it becomes too weak to be distinguishable in the random fluctuations in the environment.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 4, 2013)

numan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > If man did not possess a spirit, death would not be final.  The body could be repaired, the heart jump started, and the patient would be up and running again.  The body is the car, and the spirit is the driver.  Without the driver, the car is just a bunch of metal.  Call that driver anything you want, but it's not physical.
> ...


If we had no spirit, we would all be exactly the same.  And again, instead of addressing the point of my post, you're attacking my analogy of the car and driver.  Another distraction.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Spirit or soul or essence, as it is called in philosophy, is what lives on after the physical being ends. For example the essence/spirit/soul of a composer lives in their music after the existence of their physical body is no more. The spiritual is existential, existence precedes essence. The metaphysics Boss pushes is the exact opposite, essence precedes existence. We can observe and prove the existence of the existential, as I have shown with the composer, but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical. The metaphysical exists only by faith.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 4, 2013)

S.J. said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Dear Numan and SJ: how about explaining the concept this way:
that the WHOLE is greater than the sum of the parts?

This applies to laws, as it applies to people.

Does this help?


----------



## emilynghiem (May 4, 2013)

OK Boss and Newpolitics:
so we agree that God is in dispute over whether this can even be defined in a universal way.
and agree that spirituality or spiritual universe is also being assumed.

What about "collective level"
Do you both have a concept of either truth or human relations/existence
having a "collective level" outside our present perception based on empirical evidence,
where this "collective level" or perception thereof requires some interpretation BEYOND physical justification.

Can we discuss the abstract perception of truth or humanity on a "collective level"
and agree that exceeds current physical evidence we can prove on hand.



newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Do you comprehend WHAT spirituality is? I mean, I understand you don't believe in it, but do you even comprehend what it is? It's the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, so it had no purpose to 'spiritually exist' without humans to experience it. That does not mean the spiritual universe didn't exist. Unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, we can assume the spiritual universe was created the same time the physical universe was created. So this is like proving dark existed before light.
> ...



P.S. even if none of this works,
and we agree we are making assumptions or assertions to begin with,

can we agree to start with "ASSUMING these things exist,"
then can we work BACKWARDS from there,
and show that any objections as to WHY these things
do not exist, or are not consistent and therefore not universally inclusive,
then each and all such conflicts or objections CAN BE RESOLVED.

So if all counterclaims or counterexamples can be
resolved or explained using the universal constructs (even if these are assumed)
this shows they are universally consistent or true
because they can explain all things even the objections to them.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 4, 2013)

S.J. said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Since no two trees are identical under your definition they must have spirits. No two potatoes are identical either. Does that mean they also have spirits?


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

> but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.



There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual. 

You are all trying to demand a physical existence of a spiritual entity, and that will never work. As long as you will only see the physical evidence, only recognize the physical universe, and only acknowledge physical existences, you will never be able to comprehend spirituality or spiritual evidence. You're stuck in a logic quagmire of your own making. Spirit is non-physical by definition, but you can't accept it because it is non-physical, and you only accept physical, which is not spiritual. 

I imagine it does seem quite preposterous to someone who doesn't understand or comprehend the spiritual universe. Those who are blind to spirituality, are unable to see anything but physical evidence as evidence. There is no physical proof, there will never be any physical proof of a spiritual entity, or it would then become a physical entity. We can either open our minds to the possibility of spiritual existence and spirituality, or we can remain closed-minded, believing the physical universe is all that exists. But for 70k years, billions of humans have professed a profound spiritual belief. This isn't a fluke or coincidence, and it's not something that can casually be dismissed, as so many non-spiritual believers want to argue. 

People who know me will ask, why do you argue so vigorously there is a god, when you are basically an atheist? I don't believe in any organized religion, I think they are inferior man-made beliefs developed to explain something man has a hard time grasping. That said, I most definitely have the advantage in this argument, because I know for certain there is a spiritual aspect and higher spiritual power. I have felt the strength of this power, I have seen the results in my own life. To attempt to convince me that it doesn't exist, would be the equivalent of me trying to convince you that your mother doesn't exist.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



When a tree paints the Mona Lisa or a potato composes Beethoven's 5th Symphony, we can discuss this. Until then, you are just being obtuse about a well-made point.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> > but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In order for a *PHYSICAL* entity like yourself to *FEEL* this alleged* POWER* it must have *MANIFESTED* itself in a *PHYSICAL *manner. If instead you only *IMAGINED* this alleged *POWER* in a* SPIRITUAL* sense then your argument is *100% ANECDOTAL* and carries no logical weight whatsoever.

You have a knack for destroying your own arguments.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



So your latest kneejerk deflection is that all art must come from human spirituality? 






Those pictures above were painted by an elephant. 






Can a human being create something as beautiful as a flower?


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe.



No, we live in a physical AND spiritual universe, you only have familiarity with the physical universe because you are a physical entity. Science is a man-made system of examining the physical world, it does not apply to the spiritual universe. When we attempt to apply physical science to the spiritual world, it fails, because spirituality can't be supported by physical evidence, it's the wrong kind of evidence. You assume this means there is "no proof" but all it really means is, there is no physical proof, but there shouldn't be any, and we shouldn't expect any. It's illogical that physical proof would ever exist for a spiritual entity, because this would then make it a physical entity. IF god did switch back and forth from a spiritual entity to a physical being, you'd still argue there is no proof that god is a spiritual entity, because you don't comprehend spiritual evidence. 



> By your own definition, the spiritual can not exist in the physical, otherwise it would no longer be spiritual, but physical.



Nope... didn't say that. Spirituality has existed in the physical world for at least 70,000 years. Spiritual entities do not have or require physical evidence. They DO exist, but "exist" means something different in a spiritual sense, than it means in a physical sense, and this is where you have difficulty comprehending it, because you lack the understanding of spirituality. If a spiritual entity could provide physical evidence of it's existence, it would qualify itself as a physical entity, just by doing so, and it would cease to be a spiritual entity at that point, because there is a physical basis for it's existence. 



> Yet, you are claiming that spiritual evidence does exist in the physical universe.



I said that you are unable to recognize or acknowledge spiritual evidence, and demands for physical evidence is illogical. Spiritual evidence does exist, evidence is not a spiritual entity, it can exist in a physical sense, it's evidence, not a spirit. "Spiritual evidence" means it is evidence based on spirituality and not physical science. 



> Here again, you contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, which you claimed when resisting the idea of a spiritual god existing in the physical, and then turn around and say that spiritual evidence exists in the physical universe. This so contradictory. You are saying the spiritual can exist in the physical, AND the spiritual can not exist in the physical.



Again, "evidence" is not a spirit. It can certainly exist in the physical world. I also never said "spiritual can not exist in the physical" it most certainly does 'spiritually exist' in the physical world. There is no contradiction, just you lying about what I said, AGAIN! 



> The only kind of evidence is physical evidence.



You keep saying this, and my OP pointed out that I fully understand YOU BELIEVE it, so do you think you are telling me something new here? It's what I've said all along, you don't acknowledge spiritual evidence, and you believe the only "evidence" or "existence" possible, is physical. 



> We live in a physical universe. Not a spiritual one.



Nope... We EXIST in a physical universe, we LIVE in a physical AND spiritual one.



> When you say spiritual evidence, you are trying to pass off subjective experience as objective, because "spiritual evidence" is entirely subjective, and this, subject to a host of human cognitive biases which disallows you to establish the source of your subjective experiences. This is why your "spiritual evidence" is not evidence of the spiritual. You need to understand this. I am not simply precluding spirituality for the fun it. I am being logical, while you are trying to pass off subjectivity for objectivity, and that is supremely arrogant.



I'm not trying to "pass off" anything. There is no subjectivity, humans have been spiritual creatures as long as they have roamed the earth. Objectivity with spiritual evidence works the same as it does for physical evidence, you first have to believe in the basis for it. If I reject physical science, then physical science explanations are "subjective" to me. I can't objectively rationalize physical science if I don't believe it.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.
> ...



Didn't destroy a thing. I disagree with your analysis, because the spiritual force certainly was realized, and perhaps it was a physical manifestation, but I can't provide physical evidence to support that. I do know that this spiritual power exists, nevertheless.


----------



## numan (May 4, 2013)

'
*ART IS NATURE SPEEDED UP AND GOD SLOWED DOWN*



Derideo_Te said:


> Can a human being create something as beautiful as a flower?


Examine a painting of a flower through  a magnifying glass or a microscope, and you will soon find cracks, gashes and flaws. But examine a real flower, and there is no end to the beauty, harmony and elegance -- it is beauty all the way down.

From the balance of the fundamental constants of physics, from the structure of the whole Cosmos, down to the mysterious microcosm and its quantum mechanical structure there is balance, elegance and a Beauty which may justly be called "Divine".

Is it all an accident? Or is it the work of an Infinite Mind?

When our feeble monkey minds try to penetrate into such profound levels of Existence, perhaps there is no true difference between Accident and Infinite Mind, and they blend into One Reality.
.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As always you are entitled to* YOUR* opinion. 


> I disagree with your analysis, because the spiritual force certainly was realized, and perhaps it was a physical manifestation, but I can't provide physical evidence to support that. I do know that this spiritual power exists, nevertheless.



Your *ANECDOTE* holds no weight as far as proof is concerned. That you have convinced yourself does not come anywhere remotely near to equating to "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Why are you incapable of making the obvious distinction that your *PERSONAL* beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the matter?


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Why do you people have such a difficult time quoting me accurately? 

I never claimed all art must come from human spirituality. Someone made the point that we would all be the same if not for our spirits, and you countered with potatoes and trees, as examples of things that are all different and not the same. What you failed to grasp, is potatoes and trees lack human spirit, and human spirit drives inspiration. The art examples are cute, but they aren't masterpieces. Because someone taught an elephant to use a paintbrush, doesn't mean the elephant is creatively driven by inspiration... else, elephants would have been painters thousands of years ago, without the help of a human trainer.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

> Your ANECDOTE holds no weight as far as proof is concerned. That you have convinced yourself does not come anywhere remotely near to equating to "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Why are you incapable of making the obvious distinction that your PERSONAL beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the matter?



"Proof" to you, means PHYSICAL proof, that's all you will acknowledge or believe in. As long as you are completely and totally closed-minded to spirituality, you can never be shown any evidence you will consider valid, because physical evidence can't ever prove a spiritual entity. I've covered this already, numerous times in this thread, why do we keep having to go through it? I understand, you reject spiritual evidence, you don't believe in a spiritual universe, everything has to be supported by physical evidence for you to accept it, I get that... it's why it's impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. 

I presented the definitive proof that god exists, in the OP. But if you don't believe in spiritual evidence, it doesn't matter, the case can't be made, you are expecting something illogical, which is some kind of physical proof to prove a spiritual entity, and that ain't gonna happen.


----------



## numan (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality.


No, you are jumping way beyond the evidence. What it indicates is the probable existence of ritual -- not "spirituality."

Ritual, or even belief in demons, may be no more than a quirk of our large brains and labile mental processes. It is no proof that these beliefs are about real things -- indeed, the crudity of the beliefs is evidence of the opposite.
.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Your ANECDOTE holds no weight as far as proof is concerned. That you have convinced yourself does not come anywhere remotely near to equating to "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Why are you incapable of making the obvious distinction that your PERSONAL beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mindlessly repeating your utterly debunked and failed OP does not help your position one iota. Furthermore making ignorant assumptions about other posters doesn't help either. The only person here with a closed mind is *YOU* because you refuse to acknowledge the validity of the arguments that are refuting your nonsense. You have failed to support your position with logic too. In summary all you have left is your *PERSONAL FAITH*  which is so far removed from "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists" as to no better than any other religious believer in this forum.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Boss said:


> > but there is no example or proof of the existence of the metaphysical.
> 
> 
> There is no PHYSICAL example or proof. Logically, there wouldn't be, else it would not be spiritual.
> ...


Without realizing it, the way you edited my post proves you know you are wrong.
Thank you.

I did what you have not been able to do, I gave proof of the spiritual. The non-physical spirit of the composer lives long after the physical being has passed. What galls you is the composer had to exist first before the spirit of his music could live after his passing, and his existential spirit does not prove the existence of a God. Obviously it is you who has no conception of the spiritual since you cannot see its existential nature.

Maybe as a musician I have special insight into the spiritual nature of music, but I doubt it. Your spirit exists in everything you do, good or bad. It is a shame you are so completely unaware of the spiritual all around you.


----------



## PredFan (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



So you are attempting to prove that God exists without proving that God exists?

Man, that is some circular logic dude.


----------



## HUGGY (May 4, 2013)

There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact".  It is not.  

Spiritual activity or belief or faith has NEVER crossed the boundary into the realm of fact.

If you need a more obvious example of several million people completely believing and have absolute faith in horseshit look at the population of North Korea.


----------



## oldfart (May 4, 2013)

I can prove anything if I get to chose what constitutes proof.  Has this discussion demonstrated anything more than the previous statement?  I suggest not.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact".  It is not.
> 
> *Spiritual activity or belief or faith has NEVER crossed the boundary into the realm of fact.*
> 
> If you need a more obvious example of several million people completely believing and have absolute faith in horseshit look at the population of North Korea.



If it did, there would be no need for belief or faith, and spirituality wouldn't exist. Assuming you mean "material or physical" fact. There is tremendous evidence for spirituality, it's just spiritual and not physical evidence, and you are incapable of recognizing it. 

Also, what kind of religion people practice in North Korea is FOREIGN to the question of spirituality, spiritual existence, or existence of a spiritual god. You are confusing religion for spirituality, and there is a fairly huge difference.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2013)

oldfart said:


> I can prove anything if I get to chose what constitutes proof.  Has this discussion demonstrated anything more than the previous statement?  I suggest not.



And you can't prove anything without using the appropriate type of evidence. Explain to me how and where rain comes from, without using physical science and only using spiritual evidence? Can you do that? No, because a) there is no such thing, in your mind, as spiritual evidence, and b) because rain is not a spiritual phenomenon. In order to adequately prove how and why rain exists, you must depend on physical evidence, physical science, physical existence. You can't do that with people who refuse to accept physical evidence and demand spiritual proof. 

I'm not "getting to choose" here, I am applying simple logic. If physical things rely on physical evidence to show physical existence, then spiritual things rely on spiritual evidence to show spiritual existence.


----------



## oldfart (May 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> And you can't prove anything without using the appropriate type of evidence. Explain to me how and where rain comes from, without using physical science and only using spiritual evidence? Can you do that? No, because a) there is no such thing, in your mind, as spiritual evidence, and b) because rain is not a spiritual phenomenon. In order to adequately prove how and why rain exists, you must depend on physical evidence, physical science, physical existence. You can't do that with people who refuse to accept physical evidence and demand spiritual proof.
> 
> I'm not "getting to choose" here, I am applying simple logic. If physical things rely on physical evidence to show physical existence, then spiritual things rely on spiritual evidence to show spiritual existence.



You are only engaging in circular logic.  Discussing anything with you is a waste of time.  You choose your definition of proof.  Only people who agree with you to begin with would accept such a definition.  It's called "proof by tautology" and is an elementary logical error.  I was simply pointing this out for other posters benefit as you obviously have trouble with the concept.  Thank you for providing additional validation of my point.  

As these type discussions rapidly become tiresome and repetitive, I'll refrain from further comment on this particular fallacy.  If you have an argument that is based on some other premise than you get to choose what constitutes proof of your proposition; I would be interested in hearing it.  But having arrived at a perfect proof (which of itself is an indication of proof by definition) I doubt you felt any need to think beyond that insight.  Please prove me wrong and surprise me.


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of long winded bullshit attempting to hoist "spiritual" up on the pedestal of "fact".  It is not.
> ...



You have no way to prove the beliefs of the people in North Korea are any less spiritual than those of devout Christians.  I have seen video clips of citizens in N. Korea crying of apparent love when describing thier feelings towards the fat fuck that leads thier country.  The arguments you present are hollow as Predfan and Oldfart demonstrate.  I doubt you are presenting your side of this debate from a position of a personal core belief.  It seems more likely that you are just screwing around postulating your own rules and filling in the blanks in your self fullfilling word puzzel.  There is no proof god exists.  I'm done here.


----------



## newpolitics (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to follow the evidence. This is good, and is how science works, however. The problem is a question of evidence. We live in a physical universe.
> ...



I don't acknowledge spiritual evidence because it doesn't exist. You haven't proven it to exist. And no, your "spiritual evidence" is not objective. And reversing the realms of spirituality and physicality does not work to make a point. Evidence for gravity would be the fact that you aren't flying away. Unless you are insane, this is observable by everyone and yourself. I don't care what your spiritual beliefs are. The same can not be said for your spiritual evidence, because this is just a code word for "subjective interpretation" of reality.

You haven't provided a SHRED of this so called spiritual evidence, which is just another way of smuggling in a hidden premise that begs the question, since it presupposes a spiritual realm when you haven't proven one. This alone is enough to invalidate your attempt... Yet you keep on going! 

Your logic is terrible!!!!

You have contradicted yourself here so many times as to make my head spin. What you have just presented is the most mangled bunch of contradictory propositions I've ever seen in my life. First you say that the spiritual can not exist in the physical, this universe being physical, in which no spiritual beings can interact; then you say the universe is spiritual and physical; then you say the spiritual CAN leave evidence, just not physical evidence; then you go back to saying the spiritual can not leave physical evidence because that would make it physical... It's mind-numbing. You say whatever you want, with no regard for logic. I've never seen anything so haphazard when it comes to debate. 

It's as if you are just making it up as you gone along. However , I guess this is to be expected from someone who thinks definition of key terms is completely unimportant. You become unaware of the logical contradictions that flow from and in between your premises.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



I never said the people of NK are less or more spiritual, or spiritual at all. They may very well be humans spiritually moved to worship their leader as a deity, but this simply reinforces my point, that humans are devoutly spiritual. As we examine human history, we see very few examples of civilizations existing without any kind of spiritual belief. Humans are too intrinsically tied to spiritual devotion to make that idea work, and it has been tried. Untold millions of people have been executed because of what they believed spiritually, and would not stop believing, even in face of death. 

The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual. But unless you accept spiritual evidence, you can't prove god's existence. The physical evidence alone, does not make the case. Mostly, because god is not a physical entity, and doesn't have physical presence of existence, which is all your mind is able to recognize. God is spiritual, therefore, can't be proven with physical evidence alone. 

My case in the OP does not "screw around postulating my own rules as I go" it's clear and well reasoned, and supported with both physical and spiritual evidence. The very first point of the argument states, if you do not accept spiritual evidence, you will fail to comprehend the proof of god's existence. You can not rationalize a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you, because you understand "existence" to be a physical state of being. It's fairly safe to say, a physical man named God, who is invisible, does not reside in our universe somewhere on a cloud, in a place called Heaven, with pearly gates. It's probably not a reasonable reality that such a thing is real or to believe in such. But is there a spiritual entity outside mankind's ability to comprehend, which man can (and does) communicate with and/or connect with? There is certainly no science I know of, which can make this conclusion, and to do so, would void scientific theory.


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



OK ...maybe I'm not COMPLETELY done here.  You keep hanging on like a piece of lint that the lint remover gadget just can't seem to lift off of the fine fabric of reason.

Your smooth shifting of definition would rival a fine luxury automobile transmission.  The ace up your hole seems to be that it is the fault of the reader that they don't buy into your logic.  

Again with the disengenuous nibbling and the shifting ... You said it yourself.  "The proof god exists, is both physical and spiritual... The physical evidence alone, does not make the case".  If A + B proves C and B can't hold up then you don't have C.  It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy A is ...there is still no C.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



If A+B=C, then B can only equal C if A is zero. Did you pass algebra? 

I never said it was the fault of the reader. Many readers accept spiritual evidence, in fact, as a percentage of the human population, considering only 5% are Nihilistic, it means 95% of the readers should be able to accept spiritual evidence. However, most people who believe in god's existence, have no need to click on a thread with this title, so we get more of the type who don't accept spiritual evidence. And I suppose there are some who claim they don't accept spiritual evidence but it's because they know spiritual evidence makes a case they don't want made.


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There you go again.  I did not say A + B = C.  You should know damned well that I said A + B *PROVES* C.  If you can't digest the difference then this debate is hopeless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 5, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Here is how logic works:
> 
> Can "spirituality" be explained as anything other than communication with a deity?
> 
> ...



Well there are some who speak in tongues. Interesting stuff,they claimed they opened there mouth and just started speaking a language that they did not understand. In recordings they discovered that the two most used languages in these cases were the Ancient language of Hebrew and the other was Coptic and these people had no training in either of these languages what kind of evidence would you consider this to be ?


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Let's be clear, this debate is hopeless because you don't accept spiritual evidence. I concede that may prove to be the case, in the OP. Now here, we seem to be arguing if "prove" means the same as "equals" in articulation of a formula. The conversation has turned to this because you don't want to have a discussion on the topic, you can't refute my arguments, so you try to do the next best thing, in your mind, which is to derail the conversation by creating another superfluous argument.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 5, 2013)

there is no sceintific proof god exists.

maybe you need to look up the word proof?


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > And you can't prove anything without using the appropriate type of evidence. Explain to me how and where rain comes from, without using physical science and only using spiritual evidence? Can you do that? No, because a) there is no such thing, in your mind, as spiritual evidence, and b) because rain is not a spiritual phenomenon. In order to adequately prove how and why rain exists, you must depend on physical evidence, physical science, physical existence. You can't do that with people who refuse to accept physical evidence and demand spiritual proof.
> ...



I've already had this argument with newpolitics, regarding circular logic. You are saying, god doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence to conclude god exists, but god's existence relies on spiritual belief that you don't have, therefore god must not exist. That's circular reasoning. Proof by tautology. 

I have not chosen what constitutes proof. I simply applied basic logic, if we prove existence in a physical sense with physical evidence, it is logical that we should try to prove spiritual existence with spiritual evidence. It's just as illogical to try and prove spiritual existence with physical evidence alone, as trying to prove physics with spirituality. 

But the real problem here, the reason you can't wrap your mind around the argument I presented, is because you lack the ability to comprehend spiritual evidence. You can't comprehend it because you don't believe spirituality exists. Even though we have proof it has existed since humans were human.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> there is no sceintific proof god exists.
> 
> maybe you need to look up the word proof?



Think about your statement. "scientific" proof, means physical sciences can prove. There is no "spiritual science" we can call on. You are relying on physical science to prove a spiritual entity. This is illogical, because spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence of existence, if they did, they would be physical entities. 

Furthermore, if we look up the word proof, and apply it to science, we find that it completely destroys science and the scientific method. Science NEVER proves, it ALWAYS predicts probability. As soon as you say "science proves" you have stopped practicing science, stopped using the scientific method, and you have begun practicing faith.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 5, 2013)

why is there no spiritual sceince?

maybe your religion should have pursued that to win over converts instead of relying on bullying people into believing


----------



## Truthmatters (May 5, 2013)

I would have much more respect for organized religion if they had done that instead of using the money they take from believers to build really cool and huge buildings to endoctrinate people inside of


----------



## whitehall (May 5, 2013)

I'm still trying to figure out global warming. I'll get to God later.


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Let's be crystal sparkling clear.  Calling yourself the "Boss" as in your assuming you make the rules of debate here on USMB does not make it so.  This isn't even your thread which I might give deferance to.  You certainly don't have any domain defining my posts.  I was "clear" in differenciating between "proof" and "equal".  So your last hope has been reduced to calling names like "derailer"?    I suppose you are holding out "troll" as the grand finale'.   

Sorry Sparky!  I'm no closer to handing the keys of the insane asylum over to the inmates with all thier halucinations...AKA "spirituality" just because you hve noted they are in the majority in the facility.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> why is there no spiritual sceince?
> 
> maybe your religion should have pursued that to win over converts instead of relying on bullying people into believing



There is no spiritual science because science is the study of physical things. Religion is a manifestation of human spirituality, not to be confused with spirituality itself. Those who have no comprehension or understanding of spirituality, often confuse the two. 



> I would have much more respect for organized religion if they had done that instead of using the money they take from believers to build really cool and huge buildings to endoctrinate people inside of



Again, case in point... you have confused religious beliefs with spirituality. I highly doubt anything organized religion could have done, would make you believe in, or accept spirituality.


----------



## numan (May 5, 2013)

'

Mathematics, fundamentally, is not about physical things -- and science could not exist without it.
.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> Mathematics, fundamentally, is not about physical things -- and science could not exist without it.
> .



At the risk of sounding abstract, if math did not exist, there would be no need for science.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You are certainly not being very clear here. You claim that I call myself "Boss" because I assume that I make the rules at USMB, but you offer no evidence to support your claim. Then you claim this isn't my thread, but I am the poster who started the thread. Then you claim you were clear in differentiating between "proves" and "equals" and all I see, is you proclaiming if I don't know the difference, this debate is pointless. Then you accuse me of calling you names, when I only pointed out that you are derailing the topic of the thread, which is not an argument over "proves" and "equals." 

Sorry Sparky, you're no closer to making a point or refuting the OP argument, than before you went on this little egotistical rant.


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Responding to two threads I made an error. ONE error.  Hardly liscense to assume as much as you do.   Rant?    Egotistical?    As for the OP.. you have offered no proof that god exists.  Spirituality in all it's forms does not prove anything but widespread delusion.


----------



## newpolitics (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > there is no sceintific proof god exists.
> ...



Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence. It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively. 

No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



The scientific evidence that carries the most weight is Physical evidence. I asked earlier what kind of evidence would it be that people speak in tongues a language they never had any training in but through recordings these languages were confirmed ? They said they open there mouth and it was like someone else was in control of what was being said.


----------



## newpolitics (May 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Mind citing references or scientific linguistics studies that these spoken languages are actually languages? I have heard of ex-Christians who can speak in tongues at will, simply because they used to.  What does this mean?


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


The Straw Man strikes again.
Who said, other than you, that math does not exist?

A number is not a physical entity, yet the concept exists and is quite functional.

Your problem is the only evidence of the nonphysical requires the existence of the physical, so all you can do is divert using your Straw Men.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



No, you made several errors, as I pointed out. Yes, I did offer definitive proof, and even began by stating, unless you accept spiritual evidence, the question can't be answered, it's not logical to you. Repeating that I have not proven anything, only reinforces my point, that you do not accept spiritual evidence. You think human spirituality, which has existed in humans for all of their existence as a species, is "delusional" and "superstition," and nothing is ever going to change your mind. I fully understand this, which is why I began my argument with the caveat that god's existence is only definitively provable if we accept spiritual evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how logic works:
> ...


Evidence of a scam.
I hope you were not stupid enough to give these scammers any of your money! Wait a minute, of course you did.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
Existence begets essence.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence.



No, it means "scientific" evidence, and science is man's study of the physical universe. Science does not even apply to anything outside the physical realm. Reason being, science is largely dependent upon observation, verification, falsification, predictability regarding physical elements. It does not deal with the supernatural, and can't, it's wholly unequipped to evaluate anything outside the parameters of the physical universe. 



> It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find.


No, we live in both a physical AND spiritual universe. Science was invented by man to study principles of the physical universe, and religion was invented to study the principles of the spiritual universe. What we find, is profound evidence of both, a physical AND spiritual universe. You have simply closed your mind to the spiritual universe, in much the same way as a religious nut who rejects science. 



> It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.



Another rather long-winded rant to tell me that you do not accept spiritual evidence. I already said, there is no question whatsoever, if you can not accept spiritual evidence, you can not prove the existence of a spiritual entity, it would defy logic and reason to do so. But here you are again, explaining that exact same point again to me. 



> No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.



Oh, spiritual evidence can't be supported by objectivity based solely on physical science and physical observation or demonstration. If it could, it wouldn't really be "spiritual" but rather, "physical" and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. You're demanding some illogical proof for something, and simply denying it exists because you can't get the illogical proof you need to believe it. The proof is definitive, but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence to support the spiritual entity of god, and without that, god can never be proven to exist. 

Now, I am not "running to" anything, and/or "running away" from anything. My OP argument clearly states that you must first accept spiritual evidence in the evaluation of whether a spiritual entity exists. You fail to meet this criteria, so as I said in the OP, you will never be able to recognize the definitive proof. You continue to reaffirm that point for me, and I thank you for that.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
> Existence begets essence.



I've proven no such thing. You've proven no such thing. Sorry!


----------



## newpolitics (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence.
> ...



All you've said is: in order to believe in the spiritual realm, you must believe in the spiritual realm. You continue to reaffirm your use of circular logic, without offering any way in. This thread is truly pointless.


----------



## MaryL (May 5, 2013)

God haters? Are you bloody kidding? I think that even the hardest atheist or nihilist want proof god exists. Religion, ANY religion, isnt proving a thing. Its all man made drivel.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 5, 2013)

Why is it SO important to Christians to "prove" to the rest of us that their magic Sky Fairy is real?

Really.

Why do they care what the rest of us think or believe?

I don't care what they think or believe and I have never ever tried to get even one of them to come over to my side of this non-existent question. 

You say you believe in a god?

Cool. And you're welcome to it.

Now, move it along please.


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2013)

MaryL said:


> God haters? Are you bloody kidding? I think that even the hardest atheist or nihilist want proof god exists. Religion, ANY religion, isnt proving a thing. Its all man made drivel.



I think if we get to choose what myth is real I'll go with Santa Claus.


----------



## MaryL (May 5, 2013)

Santa Clause is a beautiful myth. On so many levels. Jesus and Mohammed, so were they, mythical figures.  Don&#8217;t live your life on legends or myths. Look at the facts. Religion doesn&#8217;t like that.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
> ...


You have given no example of spirituality that did not require humans. If you lack the intelligence to know what you have inadvertently proven, that is your problem.
The fact that existence begets essence is undeniable. Both yours and my examples prove it.
The claim that essence begets existence has yet to be proven. It has no proof and depends on faith.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



That's funny, looks like I said a whole lot more. The thing you don't seem to comprehend, is 'circular reasoning' is not always invalid or incorrect. The Sun is the center of our solar system, therefore, the Sun is the center of our solar system. Now, circular reasoning alone, does not "prove" anything, and I think that is what you are getting at, but I presented more than this, and you have to also include it in what I said. You can't, because your mind can't comprehend spiritual existence. You only accept physical evidence.  

We've now covered this about 20 times in this thread, and we can go over it another 20 if you like. Unless, by some divine province, you happen to suddenly have spiritual awakening, and become spiritually aware, you will never be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, because you don't believe such things exist. As long as that's your view, god's existence can not be definitively proven to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not in a million years. There will never be any physical evidence that god exists, which proves god's existence, because god does not exist in a physical state, but rather a spiritual one. 

I can go over all the enormous amounts of spiritual evidence with you, but if you reject the spiritual realm of our universe, it means absolutely nothing to you, and the typical reaction is to run hide behind physical science, and claim nothing is "proven" by any of it. 

Imagine if you will, I am a person who believes that only GOD can explain things to me, that unless he speaks to my heart and tells me something is so, I can't accept it or believe it to be true. Now, pretend you are here trying to explain some principle of science to me, and I keep rejecting every scientific argument you make, by simply saying, God hasn't told me that. How long would you continue to believe that you could convince me of the proof? 

It is way beyond my power to get you to recognize spiritual evidence. That is a choice you must make for yourself, and I don't have any control over that. I can point out that Spirituality is certainly real, humans have been experiencing it for thousands of years. Whether you want to acknowledge this or not, it doesn't really matter, it's a matter of fact, and a part of what makes us humans. Spirituality has existed for our entirety as a species. We can't function as a society or have sustained civilizations without it. So the question of whether spirituality exists is answered. Is it 70,000 years of mass delusion? Superstition? Fear of the unknown? No, these can all be debunked. They are the "excuses" you present to avoid acknowledging the obvious spiritual relationship humans have with something you don't comprehend. You reject spiritual evidence, and this is a prime example. 

Another aspect of spiritual evidence I predict you will reject, is something spiritual people had to develop a word for, to define it. This word, remains to this day, applied to things received through spiritual recourse.... it's called "blessings." Millions...billions, who have received "blessings" are not in question as to whether there is a spiritual force or entity. You will say this is "circumstantial" because there is no physical basis of support, but this is not a physical thing. It happened through spirituality. And it's been happening for many thousands of years, which is why they had to come up with a special word to apply.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You are being silly. Spirituality is the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, and without humans, there is no relationship required or needed. So you are presenting a totally silly and irrational point, over and over again, and including some philosophical pontification about "essence begets existence!" 

Spirituality DOES require humans, that's what it is, by definition. What the spirituality connects to, can certainly exist before humans, and you haven't proven otherwise. The fact that humans weren't here to recognize and acknowledge god, doesn't mean god doesn't exist... sorry!


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

MaryL said:


> God haters? Are you bloody kidding? I think that even the hardest atheist or nihilist want proof god exists. Religion, ANY religion, isnt proving a thing. Its all man made drivel.



I agree that organized religion is man made, and I believe it is mankind's way of trying to relate to something beyond their comprehension. To me, this is enormous spiritual evidence. Whatever this spiritual power is, which has been with mankind for all of our existence, is powerful enough to motivate this level of 'theology and religion' through thousands and thousands of years. It totally reinforces that humans are indeed spiritual creatures, in touch with some spiritual force they grapple with comprehending. 

"Proof" as I said in the OP, is tricky here, as well as "existence." These are terms which relate in the physical universe much differently than the spiritual universe. Failure to comprehend a spiritual universe, means you are unable to recognize spiritual evidence or spiritual existence. To exist spiritually, does not mean to exist physically. Therefore, the things you acknowledge as "proof" can not logically be presented. If they could, the spiritual entity in question becomes a physical entity, which can be proven by physical evidence. God, is a spiritual entity.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I pontificated nothing. I gave a specific and unassailable example. 

Anyone today who listens and is moved by the music of Bach  has experienced the spirit of Bach alive in his music. Before Bach existed no one was ever moved by the spirit of Bach, contrary to your claim that humans could connect to the spirituality of Bach before he existed to compose his music.
Existence begets essence.

Now it is time to prove your doublespeak.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I just remember reading an article on the study and I will look around and see if I can locate it but if someone had no training in these languages it would be impossible to speak it fluently. Yes you may have fakes but a fake can't fake one of these difficult languages I will add a third language it was not just the Coptic and the Hebrew language it was also Latin.

I will try to find it though.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


 
Could not find the article I read yet but it was from a couple of years ago.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rWrTexcHQ]Speaking in tongues: A Scientific study.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=0


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 6, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Not me, I don't believe in tongues I believe they served their purpose for the early Christians. If tongues are real today I believe it is from satan and he uses it to mislead many.They served their purpose for the early church so they could communicate with people who spoke different languages.

Weird.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ui2H4nqNY4]Possessed girl has ghost or demon you can hear the spirit speak - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWUFtTXHyhI]Real Scary Demon Ghost Spirit Exorcism of Possessed Girl Caught on Camera - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Bach was a physical person who created something. He physically existed, his creation was of the physical world. It did not exist until he created it. This simply does not prove that humans existed before spiritual existence. Spiritual worship didn't exist, because there was no need or purpose without humans. Spirituality didn't exist, because that's a human attribute, but you have not proven a spiritual universe didn't exist. What you are presenting is a "chicken/egg" argument, or "if a tree fell in a forest..." Well, the egg dates back to the dinosaurs, so the egg came first, and sound waves exist regardless of whether a human ear is there to hear them. These are anecdotal, and in an argument such as this, very much 'doublespeak' and circular reasoning. 

Did Ying exist before Yang? Did Light exist before Dark? Did logic exist before abstract? What if everything we are experiencing is a figment of our imaginations, and there is no reality or material world? These are great questions to smoke a joint and ponder, but they are largely philosophical nonsense questions that don't matter. 

You've presented no evidence that the spiritual realm didn't exist before humans.


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2013)

Well....Hells Bells !!!!

Let's just release all the good folks in the mental institutions !!  Now that we cleared up that nonsense about delusion being nonsense and everything..


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 6, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Well....Hells Bells !!!!
> 
> Let's just release all the good folks in the mental institutions !!  Now that we cleared up that nonsense about delusion being nonsense and everything..



Say's the one that believes "poof" life is the result of non-life absent of purposeful design.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Well....Hells Bells !!!!
> 
> Let's just release all the good folks in the mental institutions !!  Now that we cleared up that nonsense about delusion being nonsense and everything..



70,000 years of behavior in a species is certainly not "delusional" ...but YOU are!


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Amazing how you deny doing something and then go right ahead do exactly what you just denied doing.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



How you surmised that what you have written entails any amount of valid logic, is beyond me. You wrote a lot of words, but you said very little. Again, you can not logically deduce that humans' spirituality infers an actual spiritual realm. This is entirely subjective, and again, is an argument from popularity. Also, people's perception of "blessing" I entirely subjective as well. You keep on affirming that all of your evidence is merely subjective and hence, completely biased interpretations of reality. Given humans are biased when it comes to reality, this is highly unreliable, as it constitutes anecdotal evidence, which even in court, is considered highly unreliable.  Further, you can't say that society can't function without spirituality. Where is your evidence for this? Scandinavia stands as a defeater for this claim.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Boss just keeps throwing his same old shit up into the air in the desperate hope that eventually some of it might stay up there.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



The very first point of the OP argument, in fact, the first two paragraphs, acknowledge that you can find no physical evidence, and you consider spiritual evidence subjective. You think this is perception, imaginations run wild. Your mind is incapable of comprehending a spiritual realm, a spiritual nature. The term is greek to you, it means nothing. This is precisely why I spent two paragraphs of just over five, to make this point. Are you also incapable of hearing me? You can not recognize spiritual evidence, so god can't ever be proven to you. That doesn't mean god can't be proven to exist in a spiritual sense, to people who realize spiritual existence. And that is why my OP is definitive proof. 

I stand by my statement regarding civilizations, Scandinavia has a very rich history with spirituality in humans, and to this day, the most atheistic country in the world, only has about 23% who say "no spiritual god exists." No civilization has ever existed for very long, devoid of spiritual belief. You can't find an account in all of human history. This attribute can't be stomped out of man, it can't be evolved out, it can't be enlightened out. It still remains our most unique and defining characteristic as a species.  

Regardless of your long-winded explanations, the evidence shows 70,000 years of human history, where people profess to believe in a spiritual higher power, which they have always communicated with, and who bestows upon them, blessings. You say this is just good luck, but humans already have a word for good luck, it is "lucky." Blessings come from a higher power, something outside of our physical realm, and that is what the word means to this day, whenever it is applied. Now, these people who profess to believe they were blessed, do believe in a spiritual higher power that was responsible. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that's what they believe. That's always going to be a fact.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.



Newpolitcs: No point in blaming yourself for his obstinance.  No amount of sound logic or hard facts are ever going to change the mind of a "true Believer". Sometimes it is better to just move on to opponents who are more worthy of your time and attention.


----------



## G.T. (May 6, 2013)

Yes, that.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.
> ...



Thank you. I couldn't agree more. I see this as good practice for "spot the fallacy." I do consider boss to be a good rhetorician, as many theists have to be, since they dont have logic available to them to prove their points, and are able to conceal their logical fallacies in a fairly sophisticated manner using rhetoric. From this angle, I appreciate the challenge, but I think that in the end, you are absolutely right.


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trD1cEPuJ2E]Annette Funicello - Blame It On The Bossa Nova - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Well....Hells Bells !!!!
> ...



Why is it not delusional? And why are you not drawing distinctions between the types of spiritual beliefs? Many cultures simply deified objects they saw, such as the sun, moon, and stars, and added stories so they could interact with eachother to make sense of natural phenomena, such as the seasons, night/day, lighting, earthquakes. All this means is, humans didnt have s scientific explanation for things that were crucial to their survival, so they invented stories so they felt like they could interact with and control it things such as the rain (to grow crops), the sun , the climate.  This response is quite rational. From here, Religion itself has evolved from these deified objects to the monotheistic disembodied minds we see with the Judeo-Christian religions. It is that simple. No spiritual realm is needed to explain the existence of spiritual belief. Therefore, Occam's Razor cuts it away.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Ask Darwin why it's not "delusion" for a species to have a behavioral trait for 70,000 years. If we did not comprehend why salmon swim upstream, but we observed this phenomenon happening over and over with them, we would not conclude they were "delusional." Are you SURE you understand what science is? You'd think morons would know more about their own religion. 

The "excuse" you offer for spirituality, simply fails the logic test as well. If what you claim were true, we could expect to see a precipitous drop in religious and spiritual believe, with the advent of science, which came later. As science started answering these questions of the unknown, more and more people would have simply abandoned religious belief the same as they did with superstition. But that's not what the evidence shows. To the contrary, religious and spiritual belief is as strong as ever, it has not changed in humans. There have been periods of decline in religiousness, followed by periods of revival, but spiritual belief in some form, has always been the 'norm' in humans. And it always will be.

This is where Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for human spirituality, is that a spiritual nature exists. These billions and billions of people, are not having a delusion, they are literally making a connection with a spiritual force outside your realm of comprehension, and whether you believe or not, they fully believe. This is indisputable.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.
> ...



You've not presented any sound logic to refute the OP. Most of what you've presented is illogical blather, while demanding the illogical as "proof" you know is impossible. Then you want to dance around with distortion, wax philosophical, and ignore the evidence presented. After that, you conclude with an arrogant flurry of insult and denigration, and proclaim yourself victorious in battle over "the believers."  You're with newpolitics... this is TEAM thing with you... your team vs. the believers. Can't be objective and have an objective conversation with one of THOSE people, have to reject everything said on face, because this is for THE TEAM!  **RAH RAH - SIS BOOM BAH!**


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Evolutionary theory would explain why certain behavioral traits increase fitness, not whether beliefs that lead to those behaviors are actually true. You are simply assuming that those beliefs are true because they lead to increased fitness, and invoking evolutionary theory, when it would make no such claim. Humans are biologically compelled to reproduce, not to find truth.  This is why we have built-in human cognitive biases. The mere existence of cognitive human biases are a defeater for your claims, which rest on subjectivity- a realm where biases operate. Humans belief or have a tendency to believe false things because it increases fitness, such as males thinking they are more attractive than they really are, which causes them to try more with girls leading to greater reproductive success. In fact, science is designed to overcome these biases through the peer review,  and in doing so, reach a greater level if objectivity. What you are doing is trying to claim that human judgement is infallible. I'm wondering how you came to this determination, given how obviously false this is. 

 religious beliefs exist only in the absence of a better explanation, which we are getting now with science. Atheism is on the rise in America, falsifying your implicit claim that it isn't..


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



First of all, it is difficult to look at the millions and millions of humans who have been persecuted and killed due to their spiritual beliefs, and believe this was for the sake of fitness. In fact, we'd have to suspend reality to believe such a thing. You also fail to cite one single example of a species exhibiting any behavior without purpose or reason. Even the simplest dumbest animals, don't do things that are totally irrational and unnecessary, they have a fundamental reason for behavior. Of course, you claim this irrational behavior in humans is to explain the unknown, but that is false too. 

Science is designed to study the physical universe, it doesn't conclude anything, especially with regard to the spiritual universe, since physical science doesn't apply. Most all of the great unknown things to ancient man, have been explained with physical science. Therefore, if this were the reason for human spiritual beliefs, we would see a DRAMATIC decrease in said beliefs, just over the past 100 years! WE DON'T!  You can crow about the rise of Atheism, but atheists make up a relatively small number of the population... and here's the kicker, not all atheists reject the possibility of spiritual nature or a spiritual power higher than self. As I said earlier, many people consider me to be an Atheist, and here I am, presenting definitive proof that god exists. The statistic you need is not Atheists, but Nihilists, people who "believe in nussing, Lebowski, nussing!"  These people make up about 5% of humans, and this number is largely unchanged over thousands of years.... even with science explaining away the unknown. So that theory is shot to hell. 

I have not argued that human judgment is infallible, I don't know where you derived this, but I totally reject that argument. IF that were true, man-made religion would also be infallible, and it certainly isn't.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are a walking contradiction: a self-described atheist making "definitive proofs for god." No wonder you contradict yourself constantly: it is part of your nature.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.


----------



## S.J. (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.


Congratulations again, Boss.  You win round two.  NP must be a glutton for punishment.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.
> ...



Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place.  In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


First of all, you claimed these people spoke REAL languages, and you named 2 then added a 3rd. The people in the video spoke no KNOWN language and admitted such claiming God would understand them.

But more importantly, as a physicist, it was obvious to me that the claimed "scientific" study was not the least bit scientific. It lacked a control!!! There should have been a brain scan of an Atheist talking gibberish! I'm guessing the scan would be identical to the fake tongue talkers.


----------



## S.J. (May 6, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Go back and read the thread and you'll see that I participated in it early on.  You've thrown in the towel twice now in the same thread, just like you threw in the towel when you couldn't make your case for evolution.  You finally resorted to saying something like you would "kick my ass".  This is what you do when you can't win, like a kid who thinks he knows everything and loses his temper when an adult sets him straight.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.

I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.


----------



## newpolitics (May 6, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You have a serious talent for getting under my skin. Ill give you that.


----------



## S.J. (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Yeah, seems like everybody you can't bully into submission gets under your skin.


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



That's funny. I feel the same about you.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.
> 
> I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.



Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this. 

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place.  In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.



I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been?  Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers." 

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place.  In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.
> ...



You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 7, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You're ignoring the fact the test was not just done on one person but several.  I would find that interesting if the test was done on an atheist but it does not make their case any weaker because they didn't test an Atheist.

I have not been able to locate the study I read but in this case it may be no known language however the article I read about the study done they did confirm three known languages. Did you notice in the video where it showed that the brain revealed different activity when they spoke their known language from when they were speaking in tongues and someone else was supposedly speaking for them.

What kind of explanation can be given for the different brain activity ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.
> ...


Like I said, you don't even know what people have posted because you have decided no one but you knows anything about the spiritual realm, which you know nothing about. I had to teach you examples of the spiritual.

Sa far as the Big Bang, you know less about the physical than you do about the spiritual, and you know nothing about the spiritual.

The Big Bang happened, there is residual microwave evidence of it. Something physical existed before the Big Bang, the energy that went bang. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What began at the Big Bang was time, physical energy always existed.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


That is why you need the non-believing control group's brain scans! If they match the tongue talkers then it it shows that's the way the brain looks when anyone talks gibberish. That is why it was a useless "study" without the control group.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 7, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes energy has always existed that energy would be the creator. Just a question, is a fire energy can it be created and then destroyed ?

It takes a leap of faith to believe that the universe is still expanding after 20 billion years or however long they are claiming the happened. Not only that but now that we know the universe is expanding and speeding up after slowing down it's rediculous.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=expanding-universe-slows-then-speeds


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Typical reaction of someone that can't take the heat.


----------



## G.T. (May 7, 2013)

nah ywc, God was n ot proven here in this thread bud. So the delusional are those claiming it so.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Oh I know, I am delusional, religious people are delusional, spiritual people are delusional, anyone who doesn't agree with you is delusional... I get the picture. That is basically THE counter-argument to my OP. The problem is, us "delusionals" make up about 95% of the human race, and you're with the 5% who claim to believe in nothing. 

My "game" is to present a compelling argument and defend it's points, which I have done. Your "game" has been to try and "win one for the team" and since I am doing so well at defending the argument, you've decided to pretend you've won and are now "moving on." 

This marks the second, or maybe third time, you have attempted this. Let us hope, this really is your swan song, because I am starting to feel sorry for you here.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The physical universe didn't exist before the Big Bang created it. As for your argument that "physical energy" caused the Big Bang, you'll need to provide evidence of this. Oh... and the "evidence" is not that YOU proclaimed it, sorry.


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



*Oh I know, I am delusional, religious people are delusional, spiritual people are delusional*

I agree with you.  Finally.


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2013)

ImaRulez said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The "what was/is/will be after this/then" argument extends infinitely forever in both directions of the timeline we occupy.  Maybe existance with a "start/finish" is just purely a human concept and we are incapable of considering any other possibility. There is no way of looking back before the Bang and no way to guess what "Is" after the projected Big Collapse.  Most human beings have a little trouble just reflecting on how insignificant we really are in the big picture.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

ImaRulez said:


> I just watched a program on the NatGeo channel where they said that they don't know what existed before the BB. You should give them a call and give them a head's up!



They haven't consulted with edthecynic, he says it was physical energy. I disagree, I am with NatGeo, they don't know what existed before the Big Bang. You'll notice, I said it was "most likely" the Big Bang was created by spiritual forces, since the physical universe didn't exist yet.

Now, if you happen to not believe in spiritual forces, you have a problem here.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> The "what was/is/will be after this/then" argument extends infinitely forever in both directions of the timeline we occupy.  Maybe existance with a "start/finish" is just purely a human concept and we are incapable of considering any other possibility. There is no way of looking back before the Bang and no way to guess what "Is" after the projected Big Collapse.  Most human beings have a little trouble just reflecting on how insignificant we really are in the big picture.



If fascinates me, you can accept that mankind just isn't capable of comprehending existence of the universe, what was, is, will be after this/then... yet somehow, you know beyond any doubt, there is no spiritual realm that man can't comprehend.


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history.  Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.

I implore you to run this by a philosophy professor. He or she will laugh his or her face off.


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You simply are refusing to acknowledge reality. I have successfully refuted your argument on a number of different levels, citing blatant logical fallacies, which is all I need to do to show your proof is not proof of anything, but merely an assertion.


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> ImaRulez said:
> 
> 
> > I just watched a program on the NatGeo channel where they said that they don't know what existed before the BB. You should give them a call and give them a head's up!
> ...



If I was a cartoonist I would show a handfull of pilots happily flying thier airplanes over a small airport in the first frame.  Frame two would be a picture of you standing next to your little airplane, looking up at the few real pilots, with your parachute (named god) already deployed.  Frame three would be an infinite number of little prospective pilots standing there, loolking up, next to your little airplanes with your "god" shutes already uselessly on the ground making it impossible for any of you to get in your airplanes and explore the heavens.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So you are saying that God is the physical entity called energy. That would make God an impersonal God.

Heat of a fire is energy, it cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can change form. The energy was potential energy in the fuel that was burned, it was kinetic energy as the fuel burned and heat energy in the end.

What we know about the universe is that the expansion from the Big Bang is slowing down, and the matter at the farthest distances from the Big Bang is accelerating, but just because it is accelerating does not mean it is still expanding. Many of us physicists theorize that at the farthest reaches of the universe the matter is accelerating towards a super massive universal black hole which would mean that that part of the universe was contracting to a "Big Crunch." So we agree with you that an expanding universe would not be accelerating.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What I said was that it was the energy of the universe that went bang at the Big Bang, and that it was SPACE/TIME that did not exist before the Big Bang and began at the Big Bang. 

All the energy of the universe was concentrated into one point from the previous Big Crunch and went Bang at the Big Bang. The fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which means that energy has always existed and will always exist, was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, it is called the First Law of Thermodynamics or more commonly the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. You do not need to take my word for it, you can repeat the experiment yourself just as I did in college.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history.  Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.
> 
> I implore you to run this by a philosophy professor. He or she will laugh his or her face off.



Philosophy? That's your basis for argument now? Really? 

Yes, if I could ever provide emphatic physical proof of the existence of god, I would indeed be a famous man. I've not claimed this can be done, in fact, I have insisted it can't be done. My case for definitive proof relies on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, but you reject spiritual evidence, therefore the argument is ridiculous to you. I've been over this numerous times, and we can go over it again if you need to, but as I've repeatedly said, unless you accept spiritual evidence, you will never be able to acknowledge the definitive proof. 

This post from you, is not any different than 10 pages worth of posts by you. Nothing in it, discusses the topic or points made in the OP. It's about me and my personality, and what you think of me personally. This simply doesn't win debates, and if you were in a formal debate setting, they would have already disqualified you from participating further. You can't stick to the subject of the debate. But here, surrounded by all of your god-hating buddies, you can chortle it up, and make fun of "believers" and this makes you feel as if you have won.


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > What's hilarious about this little situation we have here, is that if you really had proof of the spiritual, you would have done what millennia of the most brilliant philosophical minds- St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes- couldn't do, and you would be catapulted into fame for the rest of recorded human history.  Yet... Here you are, on an Internet debate forum, beating your chest.. It's depressing to see such grandiose self-delusion.
> ...



You're talking about god and spirituality, and you think this isn't about philosophy? So, you think you are being scientific? That is delusional. First of all, all arguments employ philosophy, since logic is central to an argument, and logic is the methodology of philosophy. Secondly, don't act like a hapless victim when it comes to throwing personal insults. You are guilty of this as well. Lastly, please stop being so dishonest when it comes to me addressing the points in your OP. We have debated ad nauseum the few points you have in the OP, so stop acting like I am avoiding anything you are saying.


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2013)

If "Boss" was an astronomer he would set his telescope up inside the Sistine Chapel..


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



He *rules*..who makes the rules...!!!!!


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



My argument is not based on philosophy. It is you who is automatically categorizing spirituality as philosophy, and I reject this, because I believe a spiritual nature exists. I have never said I was being "scientific" and yet again, you have somehow derived that from my post. You seem to have this problem we can't get beyond, where I post text, and you read a bunch of things into the text that simply isn't there, and attribute it to me. You've been doing this for 10 pages, with me steadily correcting you along the way. 

Let's review my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

*1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence. *
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point. 

*2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.*
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

*3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant. *
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history. 

*4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self. *
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history. 

*5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose. *
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered. 

*6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist. *
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation. 

Now, here I have covered every point I made in the OP, as well as every stated counterpoint you've posted, in between your distractions, diversions, insults and denigrations. Nothing you have presented has refuted any point made by me, and multiple points I made, you have actually confirmed. Yet, you somehow believe, you've debunked my argument and won this debate... and you're just here now to pick up the accolades from your comrades, and hoist the trophy with "the team." ...and *I* am the delusional one?


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.



Boss isn't a theist, and some have described Boss as atheist. Boss has supplied a valid argument, you reject the evidence as bogus, because you don't recognize spiritual evidence.

You really, really, really want to be having a debate with a theist, because you continue to argue with me, as if I have made a theist argument. Since you and I happen to share many of the same exact sentiments toward beliefs in organized religion, I fully understand why you are trying to do this. And I guess you figure you'll keep trying to infer I am a theist, hoping I won't call you out on it, and then it becomes "fact" by way of me not objecting.

Sneaky, sneaky!


----------



## newpolitics (May 7, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> If "Boss" was an astronomer he would set his telescope up inside the Sistine Chapel..



Lol. I think this made me chortle.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You appear to be throwing yourself a one man pity party. Probably fits right in with your "victim" mentality.  Everyone is picking on the poor little "martyr".


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nothing you posted provides "definitive proof that God exists."

For example, in 3, claiming that 70,000 years of human spirituality proves only that humans are spiritual. I'm spiritual, but my spirituality is existential. 70,000 years of existentialism does not definitively prove God exists. Just because people are spiritual does not mean that they are metaphysical.

In 4, over the same period billions of people attribute blessings to coincidence others to blind luck.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > So theists such as Boss get to supply bogus arguments, ignore comprehensive and swift refutation, and proclaim victory, just because they desire this to be the case? This is rather solipsistic.
> ...



I don't care what you call yourself or what you want to be called. I only care about arguments being valid and sound, and yours are not even close.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have no idea what philosophy, logic, or argumentation is. If you are making an argument, you are attempting use to logic, which is a concern of philosophy. So, to say your argument is not based on philosophy is an admission that you don't  care about logic, and it shows.


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You have no idea what philosophy, logic, or argumentation is. If you are making an argument, you are attempting use to logic, which is a concern of philosophy. So, to say your argument is not based on philosophy is an admission that you don't  care about logic, and it shows.



Haha.. I have shown YOU to be the one demanding the illogical. You want physical proof of a spiritual entity. You expect physical evidence to support existence of an entity that is not physical. If spiritual things had physical properties, they would not be spiritual. There is no rational or logical reason to expect a spiritual entity to have physical properties or possess physical evidence of existence. And what does 'existence' mean, if you only believe in physical existence? How can a spiritual entity meet the criteria you demand? It's illogical.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

Give it up, NP.  You suck at debating.


----------



## HUGGY (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Give it up, NP.  You suck at debating.



This is debating ?


----------



## amrchaos (May 8, 2013)

OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence?  How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?

On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?


----------



## hobelim (May 8, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence?  How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?
> 
> On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?





he never did, but if you don't accept spiritual evidence you will never see spiritual evidence....


----------



## amrchaos (May 8, 2013)

hobelim said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence?  How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?
> ...



I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.

At least that I thought was the line of argument in the first couple of pages.  I did not have a problem with that line of argument because that is basically what the argument an atheist is pointing to when they argue against belief in god as a living being--God is an abstract concept, not a living being.  To suggest the opposite is the basis of disagreement.


Now given the last few pages, it seems that the argument is suggesting existance without physical representation nor as an abstract concept. But then there is some retracting since another argument suggest existance of the spiritual as purely conceptual.

I am trying to figure out which is which?


----------



## HUGGY (May 8, 2013)

OK...OK..I think I've got it!   

If a herd of lemmings is jumping off a cliff into the sea then to understand the lemmings point of view you must hurl yourself off the precipice with them.  Only then will you understand what a lemming "thinks".  It is something missing in YOU if you do not interact with spirits.  No ghosts in your closet?  God doesn't talk to you personally?  He doesn't give you an "atta boy" when you clean your plate and say your prayers?  The reason YOU do not have these experiences is because YOU are defective!


----------



## amrchaos (May 8, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> OK...OK..I think I've got it!
> 
> If a herd of lemmings is jumping off a cliff into the sea then to understand the lemmings point of view you must hurl yourself off the precipice with them.  Only then will you understand what a lemming "thinks".  It is something missing in YOU if you do not interact with spirits.  No ghosts in your closet?  God doesn't talk to you personally?  He doesn't give you an "atta boy" when you clean your plate and say your prayers?  The reason YOU do not have these experiences is because YOU are defective!



Which post are you responding to?  I think I missed gaining that intepretation from reading the posts in this thread....


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.
> 
> At least that I thought was the line of argument in the first couple of pages.  I did not have a problem with that line of argument because that is basically what the argument an atheist is pointing to when they argue against belief in god as a living being--God is an abstract concept, not a living being.  To suggest the opposite is the basis of disagreement.
> 
> ...



You have to begin by understanding the difference between physical and spiritual existence. When someone says "god exists" it does not mean in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. If you don't believe in spiritual nature, this is impossible. The only type of "existence" your mind comprehends, is physical. God doesn't physically exist. 

Spirituality is much more than a "concept" or "idea." The profound connection humans have always had with spirituality, the fact that we are hardwired to be spiritual creatures, that we can't function as a species without this, is "spiritual evidence" and very powerful evidence, I believe. 

Now, we could dismiss this as an odd phenomenon, if it happened in 5% or 15% of the human population, but this attribute is consistently found in about 90-95% of humans, throughout human history, this is largely unchanged. Literally billions of people who have professed a profound belief in something outside our material world. They believed they were "blessed" by something greater than self. 

This means, either we have been suffering from 70,000 years of mass delusion, like newpolitics argued, or... it means spirituality is real and people connect to something spiritual.


----------



## amrchaos (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the "evidence" was based on the existence of concepts(as in how concepts exist)----and the proof of spirituality then follows from the concept of spirituality. Not as in actually existing in the physical world, but one that can be achieved abstractly such as in thought.
> ...



Hold it

Physical existance is not a problem
Then there is conceptual existance in which an idea or concept exist in the mind.

Now give me an example of a spiritual existance if it is neither physical nor conceptual.


----------



## hobelim (May 8, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...




The way I see it, even what many people describe as spirituality is occurring within the mind. The substance of conscious thought - words, ideas, images, feelings, beliefs,  hopes and fears, etc. - is a dimension of conscious existence but without distinguishing between made up poopy doo and the actual truth a mind is either in light or darkness, rational or irrational, heaven or hell,  living or dead.

Whether there is a realm or not where intelligences can exist without the physical seems more likely than unlikely but whether the conscious mind could survive separation from the physical body would logically seem to depend on how coherent and reality based the mind was in life.


A mind whose developement has been stunted and diverted by superstition is not likely to bear good fruit.


----------



## amrchaos (May 8, 2013)

If there is a realm where intelligence can exist without the physical , then spiritual existance could reside in such a realm.

The problem I am having is the realization of this realm as neither the physical nor the conceptual.  I doubt that every civilization had contact with this extra-realm and derived absolute truth from it.  

Especially since some of these absolute truths of one spiritualists differed wildly from another spiritualist.

On the other hand, where spiritualists seemed to agree on were general concepts of morality which could well be reconstructed from a conceptual basis.  In my mind, this places doubt on wether or not a spiritual realm actually exist. It also tends to suggest that man, through the ages, have searched for rationality since the dawn of time.  Different civilizations came to some of the exact conclusions in terms of some general issues but stumbled over more specific topics.


----------



## Fender (May 8, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> OK--I am confused--what is spiritual evidence?  How do we seperate it from actual evidence of the "spirit" versus made up poopy doo?
> 
> On what page did boss define how to tell when we have actual, certifiable spiritual evidence?



When someone gets beatified by the pope. He only does it on hard evidence. He wouldn't lie to us.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 8, 2013)

G.T. said:


> nah ywc, God was n ot proven here in this thread bud. So the delusional are those claiming it so.



So many theories that are not proven the people who believe them are delusional by your line of reasoning ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



What is it with all the childish responses and attacks on people for having different opinions ? did you corner the market on absolute truth ?


----------



## G.T. (May 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > nah ywc, God was n ot proven here in this thread bud. So the delusional are those claiming it so.
> ...



Misnomer.

He's claiming his theory is "proven."

That makes him delusional. God is not proven. In any realm. If he/she/it was, to fuck all with faith eh!


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Give it up, NP.  You suck at debating.



Coming from a thread sniper, this doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Stop being a cheerleader for boss and get in this debate or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 8, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



After witnessing some of the things I have Witnessed over the years there is no doubt spiritual beings exist. People who quickly dismiss evidence for spiritual beings are not open to the possibility and quickly comment about someone suffering from delusions or are simply nuts. I believe the OP made a solid argument for his view.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea what philosophy, logic, or argumentation is. If you are making an argument, you are attempting use to logic, which is a concern of philosophy. So, to say your argument is not based on philosophy is an admission that you don't  care about logic, and it shows.
> ...



Given your lack of response to my points, ill consider this a concession that you are not using logic, and that your entire argument is logically invalid, as I've shown over and over again through pointing out multiple logical fallacies with each argument you've presented. You don't understand logic or refuse to abide by it, so you can't or won't admit this.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Give it up, NP.  You suck at debating.
> ...


It ceased being a debate when you resorted to personal attacks (like you always do).


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Why do you care? You aren't debating.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It goes both ways ywc. Don't do the Christian victim thing.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Neither are you.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Do you want to actually debate me on that? Oh thats right... You're  just a cheerleader. Scurry along now.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


You don't debate.  You just try to put words in the other person's mouth, then pick apart what they didn't say.  You make erroneous statements and call them facts, and when you fail at backing them up, you claim intellectual superiority and say your opponent isn't smart enough to understand your argument.  Then as you become more desperate to win, you start with the personal attacks.  You wouldn't last 15 minutes in a structured debate.


----------



## Hollie (May 8, 2013)

Yet another thread purporting proof of the gods that is absent proof.

Who woulda' thought?


----------



## Fender (May 8, 2013)

If god existed, we wouldn't need proof.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

Fender said:


> If god existed, we wouldn't need proof.


Requiring proof means you're not paying attention to life.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sounds like you are describing Boss. 



> * did you corner the market on absolute truth* ?



Boss has convinced himself that he has.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Neither do you. I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Debating rule #1:-


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Indeed. Thanks for the reminder. SJ is perhaps the biggest troll on this website.


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> If there is a realm where intelligence can exist without the physical , then spiritual existance could reside in such a realm.
> 
> The problem I am having is the realization of this realm as neither the physical nor the conceptual.  I doubt that every civilization had contact with this extra-realm and derived absolute truth from it.
> 
> ...



What is "absolute truth?" Do you think science provides absolute truths? Or does it not, make prediction of probability? Whether humans gain "absolute truth" from spirituality, it is clear they have this spiritual attribute, and believe they connect with spiritual forces. 

I don't accept your argument about morality, I think it's preposterous that you believe morality was constructed on a conceptual basis, and you have nothing to base this on. If humans were capable of reasoning morality into existence, why did no other species of creature on the planet ever attempt this? It's not a natural attribute at all, we find very few examples of "moral" behavior in other animals. Morality stems from spirituality. It would not exist in humans if not for spiritual connection. 

Many believe this may be why Neanderthal man became extinct. They lacked spirituality, and homo sapiens didn't.


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You've not made any points in this thread, retard. Is that what you're going to do now, start pretending you've made points that I haven't responded to, so you win? As I said (in response to your idiocy) it is *YOU* who is being illogical in this argument.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What's with the personal insults? Where's SJ to police this thing?! This isn't a debate anymore!! 

I've made points you can't even respond  to, so you just make up the claim that I haven't made any. The reality on the ground is quite different.


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.



You have done no such thing, you are just outright LYING your ass off now, I guess, to save face, I have no idea why, because people can read the damn thread. Pretty much, all you have done, is try to derail the topic, distract from the argument, bring up things totally unrelated to the OP, and proclaim yourself victorious. Scroll back a page, bud, I outlined every point I have made in this thread, along with your response. You've deconstructed nothing, you've refuted nothing. Basically, the ONLY real "argument" you've presented is... 70,000 years of distinct human behavior, is because of mass delusion. Aside from that, you've just repeated the points I made in the OP, that people who don't accept spiritual evidence can't find definitive proof god exists. But more than anything, you've tried to create drama with other posters, derail the subject and tie up the forum with smarmy little remarks that have nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> What's with the personal insults? Where's SJ to police this thing?! This isn't a debate anymore!!
> 
> I've made points you can't even respond  to, so you just make up the claim that I haven't made any. The reality on the ground is quite different.



No personal insult, you're a fucking retard. I figure you're maybe in your 20s, but you have the mental wattage of a 13-year-old. You've not made ANY rational point, in this entire thread! You've failed so badly, that all you can even try to do now, is LIE LIE LIE and hope no one notices the huge chunks of your ass missing. It's really quite funny to me, to watch you melt down like this, as if you believe this strategy is going to work for you.... just hold out... some of your god-hating buddies will be along at any time, to bail you out and make you feel validated again... just keep lying and distorting reality... they'll be here soon!  

You are a joke, and I can't believe I have wasted as much time as I have, trying to have an honest conversation with you. It's just not worth it.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > I actually do debate. I've examined and logically deconstructed each one of Boss's points, so your claims about me not-debating is just baseless shit-talking for the purpose of making someone feel bad. You are in no position to accuse someone of "not debating" given your behavior on this very thread.
> ...



What you call "derailing" is actually refutation. You're 70,000 year old spirituality claims are nothing but an argumentum ad populum, and I've demonstrated why, and that's all I need to do. I don't care how my people believe a thing, that doesn't make it true until you can actually present evidence. The only evidence you have is spiritual evidence, which is begging the question, since you are trying prove the existence of the spirtual with the spiritual. You just can't handle logical refutation, so you go into denial and call it "derailing the thread" when I've done nothing but address your shit arguments. Funny that you would blame me for your asshole friends like SJ doing nothing but throw insults at me, and then you have the nerve to say "I'm starting drama?" You're a dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## HUGGY (May 8, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > OK...OK..I think I've got it!
> ...



I'm refering to "Boss" and his cadre of sychophants circular logic and thier references to a so-called proprietary understanding of "spiritual".  They have this crazy notion in thier heads that "Yes..we will debate anyone but reserve the right to claim victory no matter what proof offered that we are just full of hot air."  Wrong answer.  Just believing you are right in spite of all available knowledge is the height of narcissism.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > What's with the personal insults? Where's SJ to police this thing?! This isn't a debate anymore!!
> ...



If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.

What's hilarious is that you think you have evidence of the supernatural, yet this has been attempted by the most serious minds for thousands of years and have failed. I disagree with your argument, point out why, and you insinuate that I am mentally defective? Looking at this thing from above, it is obvious who is actually mentally defective: the person on an Internet forum claiming definitive proof for god.


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.



Let's review , AGAIN, my points in synopsis, with your stated counterpoints:

*1. God can never be proven to those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence. *
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this point. 

*2. Physical evidence alone, can never prove existence of an entity that is not physical.*
---Repeatedly, throughout this thread, you and others have confirmed this to be valid.

*3. 70,000 years of human connection to a spiritual realm, confirm a spiritual belief that is inherent in the species and can't be defined as inconsequential or irrelevant. *
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history. 

*4. Billions of people over time, attribute a thing called "blessings" to something greater than self. *
---Your argument is, this is mass "delusion" spanning all of human history. 

*5. Darwin says behavioral characteristics exist in a species for a reason and purpose. *
---Your argument is, the reason and purpose is to "explain the unknown," even though, we see no dramatic decline in human spirituality with the advent of science, and in spite of nearly every unknown question of ancient man being answered. 

*6. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanations are most logical, and applied here, it means the simplest explanation for man's profound spirituality, is because spiritual nature does exist. *
---Your argument, Occam's Razor can only apply to physical science problems, and can never be used for any other evaluation, even though it is a theory about evaluation. 



> What's hilarious is that you think you have evidence of the supernatural, yet this has been attempted by the most serious minds for thousands of years and have failed. I disagree with your argument, point out why, and you insinuate that I am mentally defective? Looking at this thing from above, it is obvious who is actually mentally defective: the person on an Internet forum claiming definitive proof for god.



I made the point, very first thing in the OP, that you can never have physical proof that god exists. It's illogical to expect it or demand it. I do have evidence, I presented it, but it's spiritual evidence which you reject. You can continue making my initial point, that those who don't recognize spiritual evidence can find no proof of god, but let it be known, that is MY point. You've failed to refute it, and instead, you've totally reinforced it. 

I have posted my points, and what your rebuttals were, and I'm sorry, but you are a long way from refuting my argument. Now maybe, you are having a different debate inside your goofy head? That's possible! You keep misquoting me and claiming I've said things that weren't said, so that would make sense. But if we are going by the actual text posted in this thread, you simply haven't refuted anything.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > If you actually had a good argument, and were an intellectually honest person, I would gladly have a civil debate with you. But you do not have a good argument, and are not an honest person. I suspect you lie to yourself, therefore are constitutionally incapable of being honest with anyone. If you only knew how ridiculous you are, you would be appalled. Here's how it works: when someone makes a claim, They have to back it up through reason and evidence. All anyone else has to do is point out flaws in your reasoning or evidence, and the claim or argument fails. You may think the conclusion is true, but you can no get there using your premises. I mention this because you seem to be expecting something different. When I show you why and how your conclusion can not be reached given your stated premises, your argument fails. That's it. End of story. Game over. Logic is objective, not subjective. You don't get to choose with arguments work and which ones don't. I don't expect you to understand any of this. I doubt if you even read my posts.
> ...



Making the argument a second or third time doesn't make it any more valid or sound. You're "synopsis" of my refutations are completely incorrect. I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say. More importantly,  I don't need to supply a counter argument to refute yours. I simply need to show that your conclusions do not follow logically from your premises. Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world. A philosophy teacher would laugh at this illogic.  This is wishful thinking. Yet, This is all I need to show. Your argument fails for this reason. To say I haven't addressed this point and your others is simply dishonest.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Hmm, you must be one of those "snipers" NP was talking about.  Somehow I don't think he'll call you on it though.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Hey, good strategy.  Break out the "T" word to distract from the fact that you just got your ass handed to you several times.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



No, SJ. Derideo has actually been debating and contributing to this debate, whereas you have done nothing but troll, probably because you are so insecure about your belief in something god, you compulsively need to rail on atheists to feel more secure about yourself.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I care absolutely nothing of your opinion (in case you were under the delusion that I did).


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


I think you need to go back and read the thread over.


----------



## newpolitics (May 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Try actually contributing something to this debate. Just a thought.


----------



## S.J. (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Go back and look, and you'll see that I did, when it was still a debate (until you derailed it when you started to lose).


----------



## Boss (May 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



The argument is valid and sound unless you can refute it. The first two points, you have actually confirmed. The next two points are spiritual evidence, and you reject spiritual evidence as "subjective" or "delusional." Then, the final two pieces of 'physical science' introduced, you reject the usage and/or application. You've not adequately explained why, you keep trying, but you've not come up with anything rational. So the argument remains valid and sound, as presented. 

*Stating humans' spiritual belief throughout history does not deductively give you god or a spirit world.*

It's not just their spiritual belief throughout history, it is their *PROFOUND* spiritual belief. If this attribute were unimportant and provided no advantage to the species, it would have long-since been discarded by humans. It actually defies Darwin, to make the argument you are making. Every living thing, from humans down to bacteria, exhibit inherent behaviors for some reason and purpose. If there is no reason or purpose, the behavior is illogical. This theory is of great help in studying life, because we know that inherent behaviors do exist for a logical reason. We may not be able to comprehend those reasons at this time, but we know this must be the case, because it always is the case. 

Now this one single point alone, does not prove a spiritual god, but it does prove that humans derive a benefit from spiritual connection, which they profoundly believe in. It is such an important benefit, humans can not discard it, and it remains the most defining attribute of their species. Only humans worship and have inherent spiritual connection.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 8, 2013)

People have reported religious experiences and communication with God since the beginning of mankind.

Atheists, not having any experience of God, argue from their ignorance that God doesn't exist.

It makes sense for atheists to claim that they have no experience or proof of God.  It doesn't make sense for them to claim that others do not.  They make an egocentric argument from ignorance.

It's best just to ignore them.


----------



## S.J. (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> People have reported religious experiences and communication with God since the beginning of mankind.
> 
> Atheists, not having any experience of God, argue from their ignorance that God doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


They have no experience with God because God requires us to come to him through faith, and atheists have no faith.  Therefore, they will never see the light because they will never open the door.


----------



## fyrenza (May 9, 2013)

page 33 ~ tl/dnr

You mean, _OTHER_ than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?

and, i mean, what with Muslims, Jews and Christians ALL knowing the One God,
there's a TON of peeps out there that know Him / OF Him ...

Thread closed, due to logical intervention.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

> I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say.



Nope, you claimed it would not apply in this argument, because the argument supposes an unknown. But the thing is, every hypothesis ever formed, supposes the unknown, that's what a hypothesis is about. You are saying, literally, that Occams, a philosophy on answering questions, is invalid because questions are unanswered. Again, logic seems to have eluded you. 

AND... what you continue to insist is "unknown" has been known and comprehended by billions of people for 70,000 years. You reject it as "unknown" because you refuse to accept spiritual nature.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nope. You don't get to just proclaim your argument sound and valid. You don't even know what that means. This act, by itself, is a proof by assertion, another logical fallacy. Even in claiming a sound and valid argument are you committing a logical fallacy. Something is not true because you assert it to be. Your proofs involving spiritual evidence beg the question (circular logic). Establishing this is enough to make your argument crumble, and so it does. Your argument can't be sound and valid if it is begging the question, because you haven't demonstrated your premises to be true, which you would need the conclusion for, and around we go... At best, a circular argument is internally consistent, but this would say nothing about the outside world, and therefore, says nothing about reality.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

fyrenza said:


> page 33 ~ tl/dnr
> 
> You mean, _OTHER_ than all of the folks that can TESTIFY to His presence, here?
> 
> ...



Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument  from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> > I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In assuming an unknown, you lose explanatory power, since you can not explain the unknown, hence making the theory less valid than  theory in which a complete unknown is not assumed, and for which all variables are accounted for. It has nothing explicitly to do with physical versus supernatural. it just sk happens the supernatural is an unknown variable, so any theory containing the supernatural automatically loses out to one which doesn't, by the precepts involved in Ocamm's Razor.  Occam's Razor says, if you have two theories with EQUAL explanatory power, the simplest explanation TENDS to be the best. It doesn't guarantee correctness, and it isn't a replacement for deductive logic.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

> since you can not explain the unknown



Who can't?


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> > since you can not explain the unknown
> 
> 
> 
> Who can't?



"Since *you* can not..."

... You. Did I really need to explain this?


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > I have repeatedly had to correct you on my take on Occam's Razor, yet you still misrepresent what I say.
> ...



First of all, every hypothesis has an unknown variable, this is the purpose and function of a hypothesis, to examine possibility for something unknown. Furthermore, nothing in science is ever "known" if you define this by "known certainty." Everything in science is probability and predictability, nothing is ever concluded. 

You keep pretending spirituality is an "unknown" but we've been over this, it's certainly not unknown to billions of humans over 70k years, it is very much known, understood, comprehended, connected with, communicated with, and worshiped. It's not "known" physically, and it never will be, because it's not physical. 

Occams razor does not say anything about "if you have two theories." It says, whenever answering hypothesis, that simplest explanations are the most logical and likely, and evaluation should begin from there... "until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." So far, the only greater explanation you've offered is mass delusion spanning 70k years. I don't think this is a very powerful explanation, because it defies logic as well as theories of Darwinism. "To explain the unknown," also not a very powerful explanation, since most everything has been explained with regard to the "unknowns" of ancient man, and spirituality remains as prevalent as ever. "No physical evidence," again, not a very powerful explanation, since a spiritual entity wouldn't logically have any. 

The simplest explanation for why humans are so spiritually connected, is because a spiritual realm exists, and humans connect with it.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > since you can not explain the unknown
> ...



But I did explain it... God exists.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Proof by assertion. Try again.


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2013)

Maybe it is time for "proof" by demonstration as a "god" that cares about his flock of believers would surely care about such blind faith.  I submit that the only proof that unequivally can validate "spiritual" believability would be holding ones breath until turning blue and let god or some other reality be the judge.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



The thread title poses a question. *Definitive proof that GOD exists?* 

In order to answer the question, we must first establish what each word means. Four of these five words are subjective, depending upon the mind which comprehends them. What is meant by "definitive?" What is meant by "proof?" What is meant by "GOD?" What is meant by "exists?" You and I, have different interpretations. If we interpret the question differently, how can we ever agree on the answer? 

I can't prove that god physically exists, because god doesn't physically exist. It's definite, if there IS a GOD, then it must be spiritual. The "proof" has to be spiritual, to support a spiritual entity, it's illogical to expect anything else. We've established, you don't recognize spiritual evidence, therefore, there is no way to "prove" any spiritual entity, including a GOD, if one exists. It doesn't matter how much we talk, you're never going to accept spiritual evidence, and so, you can't even comprehend what "exists" means in a spiritual sense. In your mind, the only "existence" is physical, and if there is no physical evidence, it simply doesn't "exist" in your view. This doesn't mean GOD does not exist, or that I haven't definitively proven it, only that you don't believe it. 

"GOD" is a word I am using in a metaphoric way, to describe the spiritual force(s) which humans have connected with their entire existence as a species. This means, "GOD" doesn't have to be any particular incarnation, in fact, I would argue this is highly unlikely. The odds of fallible humans stumbling on the correct understanding of this entity through religion, is very low, nearly impossible. (Remember, I am Atheist) 

So, as we can see, this is a matter of how the question is interpreted. I presented the argument, you have not refuted my argument, therefore it stands as valid and legitimate. That doesn't mean I am correct, but my argument is valid and legitimate. It remains a valid and legitimate argument until it is invalidated and rendered illegitimate. You have not done this.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Maybe it is time for "proof" by demonstration as a "god" that cares about his flock of believers would surely care about such blind faith.  I submit that the only proof that unequivally can validate "spiritual" believability would be holding ones breath until turning blue and let god or some other reality be the judge.



I realize this was an attempt at humor, but I wanted to highlight it, because I think it reveals the key obstacle in your ability to overcome your ignorance about spirituality. Several times in this thread, you and others have confused spirituality with religion. You assume I am here arguing the existence of the God of Abraham, even though I have repeatedly said my personal view is somewhat atheistic. 

I believe in a spiritual power greater than self, it is like an energy force, coursing through the universe. This power doesn't have human attributes, it doesn't "care" or "get angry" or have "need" ...these are attributes humans have assigned, in their feeble attempts to understand something outside their realm of comprehension. Nevertheless, a spiritual higher power does exist. 

Not only do I believe this power exists in the universe, I have learned through the years, to tap into this energy force. Now, I don't really care if you believe me, but it's something I know to be true. I have routinely utilized this force as a source of personal strength and perseverance, as well as inspiration and enlightenment. I know this force has a positive influence on my life, because I haven't always believed it existed. I was once very skeptical, much like you, but once I became aware of this power, it changed my life forever. 

But here is what I think is happening, you and some others, are angry at religion and religious people. Somehow, you feel as if you've been deprived of something by them, or they have taken something from you... not sure what your source of anger is, but you are angry at religion. This perception clouds your judgement, you see "GOD" and immediately assume you must attack religion. You see my argument, and assume I am defending Christianity. In order to overcome your ignorance, you must first overcome your bigotry and prejudice, and I don't believe you are ready to go there yet.


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it is time for "proof" by demonstration as a "god" that cares about his flock of believers would surely care about such blind faith.  I submit that the only proof that unequivally can validate "spiritual" believability would be holding ones breath until turning blue and let god or some other reality be the judge.
> ...



Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.



You may very well be correct about this, I don't happen to agree completely, but this isn't the argument here. Religion is simply more evidence of profound human spiritual connection. It is through this inherent human attribute, all religions were created by men. Yes, religious beliefs have been responsible for many deaths, and many religions have been very destructive of humanity. However, I personally believe, without human spirituality, we'd all be swinging in trees, eating bananas, and grunting about our goofy cousins. Spirituality is, quite simply, what makes us human beings. It is what enabled us to form civilized society, and probably why Neanderthals ultimately didn't survive. 

But please don't mistake this for me saying you have to go to church on Sunday or the Debil will get you!


----------



## Fender (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Religion..Christianity, Judaism and da muslims HAVE taken much away from humanity, it's developement... education, and as a tiny member in that mass of the inheritance bestowed I do protest the cost of the willfull ignorance....without apology.
> ...



That's not the argument either. Do you or don't you have real proof of a god?


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 9, 2013)

G.T. said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > A nation that prays to God for true guidance will receive true guidance. Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same. A person who does not believe in God will not ask for guidance and will receive none.
> ...



Demonstrate it, then.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

Fender said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



I have presented definitive proof. Did you not read the OP?


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> fyrenza said:
> 
> 
> > page 33 ~ tl/dnr
> ...



It isn't an argument from popularity, it's a valid sample of the population who have experienced the presence of God.

Some people have direct experience of God in their lives. many accept the existence of God on based on faith or logic, some insist that God doesn't exist because they have not experienced the presence of God.

So, no, it's not a logical fallacy.

If God doesn't exist, how do you explain religious experiences?


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > fyrenza said:
> ...



That's gods whole problem... he picks and chooses who he gives the presents too.  That's why I would much rather believe in Santa Claus.  I got lotsa presents from Santa..


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > boss said:
> ...



Perhaps Politico had the right idea in the beginning of this thread when he simply wrote... 

No.

You have simply doubled back on your misunderstanding and misapplication of Occams Razor, evolutionary theory, and everything else you mentioned. Again, making a mistake a second time doesn make it any more correct. Occam's razor says NOTHING about which hypothesis is most "logical". It uses logic to cut away superfluous hypothesis' that have the same explanatory power but exhibit less parsimony (less efficient or economical). I used "two theories" to make it easier for you to understand. It could be any number of theories that are being compared. And no, not all theories have unknown ASSUMPTIONS in them, either at all or to the same extent as another. This is a copout. A theory is an attempt to explain facts we see. There' doesn't have to be an unknown at all. For example, Occam's Razor cut away Ptolemy's geocentric model and its complex epicycles for Copernicus's heliocentric model of the universe which required only concentric circles,  because although they explained and predicted things identically, Copernicus's model was much simpler.  
There is no "unknown" assumption here, as you are positing when you throw in a spiritual realm that them needs to be explained. Again, Occam's Razor is not a replacement for deductive logic, which is the bedrock for ascertaining truth, especially in scientific inquiry. It doesn't tell you what is necessarily correct: that is deductive logic. it simply tells you what is likely not correct, all things being equal, hence why it is called a "razor" and not a "formula." In your case, all things are not equal between a naturalistic account for religious belief and a supernatural one, so Occam's razor doesn't even apply. Your theory is automatically thrown out because of the introduction if the supernatural, which is completely unknown, hence, making it almost infinitely less parsimonious. You need to now explain what the supernatural is, where it comes from, etc...

It does not defy the theory of evolution (not sure why you are referring to Darwin) to say that humans religious belief is a delusion. This theory would say nothing of the veracity of religious belief. Here, you are making several logical leaps without demonstrating the intermediate steps. I do not grant your conclusion, until you demonstrate how you got there, which you have not done. All you do is cite "Darwin" and "logic." How is it illogical that humans are mistaken about reality?


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > fyrenza said:
> ...



It is an argument from popularity. "X amount of people believe Y, therefore Y is true." What people believe is not NECESSARILY true. In fact, far from it, most of the time. It is special pleading to say that only in the case of religious belief, are people actually correct, but in other areas they are not (ie... Aliens). Humans are not truth machines. They are mating machines, who are programmed for survival, not truth. We are not omnipotent, therefore everything we believe is not true, simply because we believe it.


----------



## G.T. (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



No problem.

Do you believe in God?

Pray for him to guide you to my house.

When you get here based upon his guidance, I will give you a cold beverage and a friendly meal and then you can be on your way.

If you cannot find my house from God's guidance, then it was demonstrated that the statement "Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same." is false. 

It's not that hard.


----------



## S.J. (May 9, 2013)

Those who demand proof of God's existence will never get it because the proof comes in spiritual form, and if you don't seek God, he is not going to show himself to you.  Why should he?  If you don't want to know him, why should he waste his time on you?  He has no obligation to "win you over".


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> That's gods whole problem... he picks and chooses who he gives the presents too.  That's why I would much rather believe in Santa Claus.  I got lotsa presents from Santa..



You have to wonder how much less selfish and self-centered you'd have turned out, if Santa had withheld those presents until you learned to respect others. 

But here again, we have you illustrating your projection of hate for religion on god. You refer to god a "he" and you indicate "he picks and chooses" which is in reference to religious morality. What we clearly see in your remarks, is a disdain for religion. What is interesting is you and I have virtually the same opinion regarding organized religions. 

Spirituality is not religion. Religions are a manifestation of man's spirituality, and an attempt to comprehend something they don't understand. Jews believe they are "god's chosen people" but the "god" I believe in, doesn't choose people, has no need to choose, and doesn't care. God is supposedly "omnipotent" so why would god need for you to behave a certain way? Couldn't omnipotent god just make you fucking behave how god wants you to? God could have just created a world of perfect people who never do wrong or sin, because god is god, and has such power. 

In order for humans to connect spiritually, certain disciplines must be practiced. The desire to connect spiritually comes naturally to humans, the ability to do so, requires development. In order to bring these disciplines into some kind of order for an entire group, religious doctrines were created and established. Attributes familiar to man, were used to construct a perception of god in the image of a human, a man. This man is then assigned the role of moral judge. This creates a rational perception of a god that can be followed and worshiped, because humans can relate to human-like attributes. 

In spite of organized religion, man can still connect spiritually. God does not have to conform to our preconceived notions or adhere to attributes we've assigned. A spiritual god can exist, who is not a judge, doesn't have feelings of love or anger, doesn't spite or punish, and simply exists in a spiritual sense, as a source of power for those who can connect. Of course, if you totally reject spiritual nature, you'll never recognize this power.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Imagine a sinking ship at deep sea as the result of a hole in the hull : what boss is doing in his use of Occam's, is the equivalent of plugging up the hole, while creating an even more massive hole. The ship still sinks, and more quickly.

The point of an explanation, is to not have any more "leaks" when you are done, or at least make the epistemic holes smaller, not larger.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You have simply doubled back on your misunderstanding and misapplication of Occams Razor, evolutionary theory, and everything else you mentioned. Again, making a mistake a second time doesn make it any more correct. Occam's razor says NOTHING about which hypothesis is most "logical".



Sorry, I didn't say Occam's compares hypothesis. It doesn't. It says the most logical place to begin evaluation, is the most simple explanation. The only way another legitimate hypothesis can be introduced, is if it meets the criteria of "greater explanatory power." Otherwise, we only have the one simple hypothesis. 



> It uses logic to cut away superfluous hypothesis' that have the same explanatory power but exhibit less parsimony (less efficient or economical).



It does no such thing. It only allows for another hypothesis if it contains GREATER explanatory power. Parsimony is simply "economy in the use of means to an end." The most "economical" means to the end, on a question of spiritual human connection spanning the existence of the species, and tied intrinsically to it, is that a spiritual realm exists. You've offered nothing of "greater explanatory power" so there is only the one hypothesis.

You want to violate Occam's Razor, to introduce a hypothesis which is much more complicated and difficult to prove, and has weaker explanatory power, because it defies general logic. 



> I used "two theories" to make it easier for you to understand. It could be any number of theories that are being compared.



No, it can't be. Occam's has nothing to do with "comparing" theories. It maintains the starting point of evaluation should always begin with the simplest theory, and only theories which contain greater explanatory power can be introduced as valid. So we start with the simplest theory, and if we can't find a greater explanation, we remain with the simplest theory. 



> And no, not all theories have unknown ASSUMPTIONS in them, either at all or to the same extent as another. This is a copout. A theory is an attempt to explain facts we see.



Nope! A "theory" is an attempt to answer a question. A question exists because something is not known to be fact. Theories often have little to do with what we see. There is no need to "explain" something that is a fact, it is proven, that's what makes it a fact. A theory is often used to try and explain a *phenomenon.* Anytime there is a phenomenon that requires explaining, there is a question, an unknown. 



> There' doesn't have to be an unknown at all. For example, Occam's Razor cut away Ptolemy's geocentric model and its complex epicycles for Copernicus's heliocentric model of the universe which required only concentric circles,  because although they explained and predicted things identically, Copernicus's model was much simpler.



Occam's simply establishes the prevailing  hypothesis as the simplest, until a hypothesis of greater explanatory power is presented. 



> There is no "unknown" assumption here, as you are positing when you throw in a spiritual realm that them needs to be explained.



But the spiritual realm doesn't need to be explained, it's spiritually present, it exists spiritually, not physically. You demand it be explained physically, which is just plain illogical.



> Again, Occam's Razor is not a replacement for deductive logic, which is the bedrock for ascertaining truth, especially in scientific inquiry. It doesn't tell you what is necessarily correct: that is deductive logic. it simply tells you what is likely not correct, all things being equal, hence why it is called a "razor" and not a "formula." In your case, all things are not equal between a naturalistic account for religious belief and a supernatural one, so Occam's razor doesn't even apply.



"Scientific" inquiry has little to do with spiritual evaluation, since science doesn't deal with spiritual existence. Occam's is not confined to JUST questions of science. It is a "razor" which means it's a philosophy, and the purpose is to establish logical starting points for any evaluation of any question. It has no caveats or restrictions to physical sciences, although, physical science can certainly provide greater explanatory power in many cases. In the case of human spirituality, it simply can't. The most logical and simple explanation for 70k years of human spiritual connection, is not "mass delusion." 



> Your theory is automatically thrown out because of the introduction if the supernatural, which is completely unknown, hence, making it almost infinitely less parsimonious. You need to now explain what the supernatural is, where it comes from, etc...



Again... not unknown to billions and billions of spiritual humans who've existed for 70k years. Supernatural is that which is not within the physical realm. It does not have to be confirmed from where it comes, you can't even do that with the physical universe. You continue to demand evidence that is simply illogical. 



> It does not defy the theory of evolution (not sure why you are referring to Darwin) to say that humans religious belief is a delusion.



We're not debating "religious belief" here, we are talking about human spiritual connection which has been a prevailing attribute in our species as long as we've been a species. It certainly defies Darwin to claim a species has been "deluded" into a behavior for all of it's existence, which is purely superficial and serves no fundamental purpose. No other living thing we've ever studied, is "duped" into a behavior of any kind. To the contrary, every living thing we've ever observed, exhibits behaviors inherent to the species, for a valid and legitimate reason. 



> This theory would say nothing of the veracity of religious belief. Here, you are making several logical leaps without demonstrating the intermediate steps. I do not grant your conclusion, until you demonstrate how you got there, which you have not done. All you do is cite "Darwin" and "logic." How is it illogical that humans are mistaken about reality?



Again, we're not talking about man-made religions, which are highly flawed and imperfect. These are simply manifestations from man's incontrovertible connection to a spiritual realm. My conclusion is simple, humans are spiritually connected and always have been.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 9, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Amazing erudition.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 9, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I see.  God as GPS.

I honestly believe people become atheists because they are incapable of thinking in the abstract.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



No, it isn't an argument from popularity, nor is it special pleading, as I've ably pointed out.  The flaw in your thinking is that you fail to believe people when they relate first hand knowledge to you.

It is you who is engaging in logical fallacy -- an argument from ignorance and an egocentric one at that.

You're position is that anyone who reports experience of God is a liar, insane, or delusional.  That is clearly not the case.

Besides, if you believe people are programmed, who does the programming?

Don't tell me you're an advocate of intelligent design.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I don't have a deity.  Why would you think that?  Do you think God is Clark Kent?  Are you that silly?  Are you going to start blabbering about Loki and Thor?

Are you going to ask me if God can make a rock he can't lift?

Why do the benighted constantly build strawman anthropomorphic gods and then destroy the strawmen?

The universe either has meaning or it does not.  If you believe that it does not, that makes you a nihilistic, lost senseless person who doesn't believe in God because he lacks the mental capacity grasp the concept.  

There's a reason religious people consider you to be in darkness.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



Alright. I'm not going to keep ongoing back and forth. Demonstrate how a human belief equates to truth.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



Ironic!



> You're position is that anyone who reports experience of God is a liar, insane, or delusional.







> That is clearly not the case.
> 
> Besides, if you believe people are programmed, who does the programming?
> 
> Don't tell me you're an advocate of intelligent design.



No amount of "first hand" anecdotal "experience of God" equates to a single provable *FACT*.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.



Why are you still hung up on religious attributes assigned to god by men? Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments. 

Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, we are all born with inherent spiritual nature, not as Nihilists.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Anecdotal evidence, which is all "spiritual evidence" could ever be, is entirely subjective, and therefore unreliable. It does not hold up by itself in court, unless corroborated by the objective facts, and neither does it here. To say anecdotal evidence should  hold up by itself when it comes to god, is special pleading.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



Asked and answered.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.
> ...


Probably because of your OP.


> * Does god have to be omnipotent or a deity to exist? Who made this argument? *


Which religion claims not to have an omnipotent deity?


> Whether or not there is a spiritual entity in a spiritual existence, doesn't have anything to do with man's incarnations or imaginations regarding said entity. It's two completely different arguments.
> 
> Here, we have yet another example of someone who hates religion, closing their minds to spirituality because of their hatred of religion. Unable to objectively review evidence unless it is physical in nature, rejecting anything associated with spirituality, because this signifies religion. Even the generic mention of spiritual nature, sparks this emotive anti-religious rant. It's rather sad to me, that some people are so filled with hate for religion, they have lost connection to spirituality.... and make no mistake, *we are all born with inherent spiritual nature*, not as Nihilists.



Everyone is born an atheist too. Having spirituality does not equate to the existence of a deity. Why do you have so much trouble with a concept this simple? Is it because it exposes your entire premise as totally and utterly bereft of any basis whatsoever?


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm... So if *an omnipotent spirit *decides to manifest itself in the physical world, that is something the omnipotent entity can't achieve? Is that what you're saying?
> ...





Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.
> ...


Well, YOU did when it served your purpose to make your spiritual entity omnipotent!

Of course, after I shot down omnipotence, suddenly Gods have nothing to do with omnipotence.

And that spiritual nature we are born with is existential. You have yet to PROVE the existence of a metaphysical spirit, omnipotent or otherwise. Without proof of the metaphysical you have no "definitive proof that GOD exists."


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > So your deity is limited to the abstract only? So much for omnipotence.
> ...



Its really silly to suggest that _we are all born with inherent spiritual nature_.

I am looking for a paradigm Ive not yet heard that might support and external assertion of the existence of gods. But what were truly getting at here is the obvious absurdity of the position of the theist. Admitting the nature of that which he worships is beyond his ability to understand, he nevertheless asserts attributes and characteristics that, when challenged, he must back-pedal from and watch as they crumble before him.

This is again a paradox you volunteer for. I do not place you there. Asserting bibles and Books of the Dead only establishes yet more mythology, and in my opinion, I have to ask if you rely on such, are you truly touched by this entity you assert or have you learned of it through a book (and familial / social conditions), and this book alone (whatever this book happens to be). Empirically / objectively / externally speaking, you believe in gods because you read it in a book. If you had never come across the book or exposed to religion by way of happenstance of birth in a particular location, you would not have these beliefs or you would have different beliefs.


Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs seem to be externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


----------



## newpolitics (May 9, 2013)

Not to mention that different theistic notions are mutually exclusive, such as those between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, they can't all be right. Yet Boss seems satisfied in reducing all religious beliefs down to spirituality, without dealing with the contradictions that would result.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



What I stated has nothing to do with the Christian thing or being the victim. I guess you're not capable of having an intelligent debate with maturity driving the debate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I shouldn't but that was funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Yet another thread purporting proof of the gods that is absent proof.
> 
> Who woulda' thought?



Uh oh,there goes the neighborhood Hollie is here...


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 9, 2013)

Fender said:


> If god existed, we wouldn't need proof.



That answer goes for many things lol like Macro-evolution.


----------



## Desperado (May 9, 2013)

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists? 
Look around
You think all this happened by some random Big Bang explosion?
All the details in life all around and it was all started by happen stance?
Logic dictates this was not an accident.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Question,why are you and NP posting in the thread in that case ?


----------



## fyrenza (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument  from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.



WTF _planet_ do you live on???

If EVERYONE believes it to be true?

It's TRUE to everyone.

iow?  No one would be trying to DISprove it.


----------



## fyrenza (May 9, 2013)

And if someone WAS trying to disprove it,
as incompetently as atheists of today try to disprove God,

it would just REMAIN a basic truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > People have reported religious experiences and communication with God since the beginning of mankind.
> ...



Oh I have to disagree just a bit. It takes faith to believe according to the evidence available that life began without a designer.


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...


It appears that all the evidence you require can be cut and pasted from Harun Yahya.


----------



## daws101 (May 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...


Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific 	

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

What are the Criteria of Science?:
Science is: 
Consistent (internally & externally)
 Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
 Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
 Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
 Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
 Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
 Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
 Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Is Creationism logically consistent?:


Creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.

Is Creationism parsimonious?:


No. Creationism fails the test of Occams razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.

Is Creationism useful?:


To be useful in science means that a theory explains and describes natural phenomena, but creationism is not able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, creationism cannot explain why genetic changes are limited to microevolution within species and dont become macroevolution. A true explanation expands our knowledge and understanding of events, but saying that God did it in some mysterious and miraculous way for unknown reasons fails in this.

Is Creationism empirically testable?:


No, creationism is not testable because creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Creationism relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider God did it to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.

Is Creationism based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?:


No experiments have ever been performed that either demonstrate the truth of Creationism or suggest that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Creationism did not originate out of a series of experiments that produced anomalous results, something that has occurred in science. Creationism has, instead, developed out of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in America. Leading Creationists have always been open about this fact.

Is Creationism correctable?:


No. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is no possibility of future correction and no reason to look for more data. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific.

Is Creationism progressive?:


In a sense creationism could be considered progressive if you say God did it to explain all previous data as well as previously unexplainable data, but this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what came before and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Does Creationism follow the scientific method?:


No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. Second, as there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.

Do Creationists think Creationism is science?:


Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit that creationism is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says: We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery. 

Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes: 
We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and verification) of their ideas. If Creationism is not considered scientific by the movements own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science? 

Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific, But It's Not Science


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Now you are trying to take my quotes out of context to pretend I said something I contradicted. I have not. The first quote is a response to a comment about omnipotent god, which I never claimed god was. I have repeatedly said, in order to exist, god *does not have to be* omnipotent or a deity, or have a white beard, or live on a cloud, or have Jesus sitting next to "him"... these are man-made characterizations. 

We've been over the "proof" thing, in the OP, and for dozens of posts to follow. There is no physical evidence of spiritual entities. There IS proof of a metaphysical existence, it's 70k years of behavioral characteristic in humans, billions of which, report connection with the metaphysical realm. I'm sorry you don't accept and can't comprehend spiritual evidence, but that is what you look to, when evaluating existence of spiritual nature.


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



Wordgames  ...a simpleton's folly..    I'm just here going along to get along.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Not to mention that different theistic notions are mutually exclusive, such as those between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, they can't all be right. Yet Boss seems satisfied in reducing all religious beliefs down to spirituality, without dealing with the contradictions that would result.



I am satisfied that we do not have to define things to explain or confirm their existence. We're back to Page 1 arguments again. Religions are manifestations of spiritual connection in man. Whether they are absolutely correct or totally false, has nothing to do with spiritual existence. The fact that such a broad scope of various religions exist and have always existed, is proof positive there is something spiritual humans are connecting with, which they feel compelled to share with others, and religion is the construction of their concepts.


----------



## S.J. (May 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...


I know, but let's not confuse the one-dimensional thinkers.


----------



## dblack (May 9, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?
> Look around
> You think all this happened by some random Big Bang explosion?
> All the details in life all around and it was all started by happen stance?
> Logic dictates this was not an accident.



How so? Observation indicates otherwise.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is.
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You are a lousy liar. Do you see that little right facing arrowhead in the quote box title? If you click on it it takes you to the original post. YOU were the one to bring up omnipotence, I brought up Christ never saying anything about omnipotence. You had claimed that a God was spiritual and could not exist in the physical and I said that that would preclude the physical Christ from being a God. You then countered with your omnipotent spirit. That was the context, not the bullshit you just made up out of thin air.

And you have proven nothing about the metaphysical, you have only pontificated the existence of the metaphysical. Only the existential spiritual nature has been proven, so without proof of the metaphysical you cannot assume that 70k years of human spirituality has anything to do with anything other than the existential spiritual nature of man.


----------



## fyrenza (May 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> How so? Observation indicates otherwise.



To whom?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

fyrenza said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument  from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.
> ...



This is the whole point of logic and the idea of truth. Truth exists independently of our minds. This is the idea of objective reality. A mind-independent truth. Therefore, it is simply our job, trapped in our subjectivity, to figure out "what is going on out there" outside of our heads, using only our five senses. Science is presently the best way of ascertaining truth about the universe. Nothing else has come close. Just look at the progress we have made since modern science began its queries into the mysteries of how reality actually works. It is been exponential progress. The opposite is true of religious epistemologies. Just look at the dark ages. Ascertaining truth about the universe has nothing to do with what we believe, but what we can show. The argument from popularity fails because a belief is not the same as knowledge, and there is no logical connectivity between a belief inside someone's head, and the actual reality that exists outside of it. Therefore, it doesn't matter that no one would be there to challenge an idea if everyone believed something were true. It doesn't make it true, simply because of the fact that it is believed. Unless,  you believe that we are the designers of objective realty, in which case you are saying we are god... This is basically solipsism. Then, what is the point in god if we are deciding reality?
You run into a conundrum if you believe that belief decides reality, and god exists. 


Reality exists independently of us. A thing is true not because we believe it, but simply because it is true, with reference to itself, irrespective of anything else. A rock is a rock is a rock. The law of identity. This is classical logic.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Look, dum dum... the same people who believe Christ is god's son, also believe god is omnipotent. I have repeatedly said this is not about religious beliefs of god, or various incarnations of god. I have repeatedly said I am not here to argue theology. You, as well as some of your "team" have been constantly attempting to finagle the conversation into a theological debate, and I have constantly been trying to keep the thread topic on track. We are not talking about theological manifestations of spiritual belief, we are talking about spiritual existence. 

I've not argued that god is omnipotent, or said I could prove an omnipotent god. I've not contradicted that statement, and you've not shown a contradiction. You presented my smart-ass response to a smart-ass remark about Christ. Sorry you completely missed the context there, but I can't say that I am surprised. You're not very bright.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that different theistic notions are mutually exclusive, such as those between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, they can't all be right. Yet Boss seems satisfied in reducing all religious beliefs down to spirituality, without dealing with the contradictions that would result.
> ...



Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. You have said that you both need to and don't need to define something. Please, just pick one for the sake of consistency. 

It is basic logic that if you want to discuss something that you believe exists in any respect, you have to define it so that others know what it is we are discussing, otherwise it is back to Bloo-Bloo. Do you know what Bloo-Bloo is? No? That's okay. It exists. You just don't see Bloo-Bloo evidence. That's your problem...

You are doing the same thing now. It is an incoherent argument, because that which you are asserting is logically incoherent.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

dblack said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?
> ...



Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



You can not logically say that observation indicates nothing, and then say that humans have always been tied to spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is derived from observation, which according to you, indicates nothing, which means there is no spirituality. 

Boom.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You may be a condescending smart ass but that does not give you the right to project it onto me. My remark about Christ was not a smart assed remark, and YOU brought up an omnipotent spirit, not me. Just because you now consistently reject an omnipotent spirit after I debunked omnipotence does not mean you didn't embrace an omnipotent spirit when you thought it would score points for metaphysical spiritualism.

The more you deny your obvious contradiction the more you discredit yourself.
Thank you.


----------



## fyrenza (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> fyrenza said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Nice try!  No banana.

I stated something that is SO BASIC :

1 + 2 

=

2 + 1

What have you "shown?"

An idealistic view of what 1 actually is,
and how, when added to 2,
_could/maybe/might_ be a bit _more_ than 3?

SUE the folks that supposedly educated you,
for they blinded you.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

fyrenza said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > fyrenza said:
> ...



Heh?


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Man, are you really this incapable of comprehending plain English? Do you not see the comma, followed by the word "except" which means there is an exception to follow? Observation shows us all kinds of things, I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently imply otherwise. Observation certainly doesn't indicate there is no spiritual existence. As a matter of fact, you must be able to observe spiritual evidence, the very first and foremost criteria established in my OP. 

So now, how about you stop sputtering around like a shit fly, trying to catch me in a contradiction, and address the points in the OP that you have STILL not addressed adequately? Or is your objective now, to be the biggest anal nuisance you can be, until I get bored with you and move on?


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> fyrenza said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



No bananas ???  A butterfly flaps it's yap on USMB and the price of bananas goes up at my grocery store...I E ...no bananas for HUGGY today...  

True story..


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I am using your logic, so you are disagreeing with yourself. 

You said it: "you must be able to observe spiritual evidence" yet you just said "observation does not indicate anything." So you are special pleading in saying that observation does not indicate anything except in the case of spiritual observation, which you would need to somehow justify, but haven't. So many holes in your logic.

You only are confirming that " spiritual evidence" is merely anecdotal evidence.


----------



## fyrenza (May 10, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> No bananas ???  A butterfly flaps it's yap on USMB and the price of bananas goes up at my grocery store...I E ...no bananas for HUGGY today...
> 
> True story..



Wanna "monkey around," later?  ROFL!!!


----------



## S.J. (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Why are you clapping? Oh that's right. You think this constitutes debating.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




You left out your smart-ass remark that I replied to:
*"As well as definitive proof that the physical existence of the Christ rules out the possibility of him being God, without violating your premise that is."*

First of all, you have not debunked omnipotence. That's not to say a spiritual god is or isn't omnipotent, but omnipotence has nothing to do with question of existence. I never argued god was or wasn't omnipotent, I don't need to prove either way to evaluate existence. You raised a question regarding Christ, and the same theological belief which gives us Christ, also believes god is omnipotent, so a physical manifestation of god is certainly possible. You threw this theological understanding in the mix to counter my argument that spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence. It's cute, but I am not here to defend Christianity or what they believe god is or isn't. I'm just rationally evaluating the existence of a spiritual entity, and trying to keep the conversation on that topic. 

You know, this whole thread is extremely disappointing to me. Page after page of morons wading in to proclaim "there is no proof of god" as if they haven't even read the OP, a few ruthless god-hating warriors, refusing to remain on topic and discuss this reasonably, a few more antagonists who have no intention of an honest debate, and idiots like you, who want to try and manipulate my words into a "gotchya" moment. I wanted to talk with others who realize a spiritual realm, but don't necessarily subscribe to religious dogma. I wanted to explore the possibilities of Astral Projection, and the Astral plane. You know, with OPEN MINDED people who aren't afraid to explore possibilities, because they are too freaking filled with hate for Christianity!


----------



## S.J. (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


This isn't a debate.  It's a pathetic attempt by you to save face, and you're failing miserably.  Call me sadistic but I'm enjoying the carnage.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You said it: "you must be able to observe spiritual evidence" yet you just said "observation does not indicate anything."



No I didn't, read it again, skidmark. 



> So you are special pleading *in saying that observation does not indicate anything except in the case of spiritual observation*, which you would need to somehow justify, but haven't.



I didn't say this either. 



> You only are confirming that " spiritual evidence" is merely anecdotal evidence.



Again... never said this. 

Once again, you apparently took too many hits on the old crack pipe, and are reading shit I never posted. But hey... as long as it eats up another page of the thread, so people don't find your total butt kicking on the topic, that's all you're after now.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



What you're enjoying is the failing of your own beliefs to present themselves with any veracity. I would call this masochistic.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You said it: "you must be able to observe spiritual evidence" yet you just said "observation does not indicate anything."
> ...



You are a straight up liar. I am quoting you directly in the first quote. As to the second and third quote, I know you didn't say it. I  am saying it, because it follows logically from what you do say. You don't like the logical results of your premises? Change them.


----------



## S.J. (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


No, I'm enjoying watching you bleed to death while proclaiming victory.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Who's proclaiming victory?


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You are a straight up liar. I am quoting you directly in the first quote. As to the second and third quote, I know you didn't say it. I  am saying it, because it follows logically from what you do say. You don't like the logical results of your premises? Change them.



No, you are not quoting me directly, you are grossly misquoting me. In fact, you have left out half of my sentence. As for what logically follows the misquote, it doesn't matter. 

Here's the conversation:

Desperado: Definitive Proof that GOD Exists? 
Look around
You think all this happened by some random Big Bang explosion?
All the details in life all around and it was all started by happen stance?
Logic dictates this was not an accident.

dblack: How so? Observation indicates otherwise.

Boss: Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief. Even the theory of the Big Bang can not be 'explained' by physics, because matter does not create matter. Energy doesn't materialize from nothingness.
-----------------------------------------------

With regard to (context) "proof that god exists," observation indicates nothing but years of human spiritual belief. Now, I am terribly sorry that you are so profoundly retarded that you can't understand the context of the conversation, and that I have to repeatedly explain the context to you like a fucking third grader, but this makes the third time I have responded to this idiocy, to correct ANY misinterpretation you might have had in your fucked up retard mind. 

There's not much else I can do here, if you insist that you know better about what I intended and meant than I do, who am I to argue with a 'genius' like that? I guess I should just bow out of this thread and let you tell everybody what I want to say, since you seem to know better than myself? Maybe I should just start letting you post threads for me too, since you have such an amazing mind? 

Now, go fucking learn how to comprehend a sentence in context, please?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You are a straight up liar. I am quoting you directly in the first quote. As to the second and third quote, I know you didn't say it. I  am saying it, because it follows logically from what you do say. You don't like the logical results of your premises? Change them.
> ...



How could I post for you? You don't know even know what you are saying. I quoted two contradictory propositions from you. As usual, you try and skirt around the issue and don't actually address what I'm saying.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> How could I post for you? You don't know even know what you are saying. I quoted two contradictory propositions from you. As usual, you try and skirt around the issue and don't actually address what I'm saying.



No, you deliberately misquoted me and took my comment out of context, so that you could continue to divert and distract from the thread topic. It's what you've done for most of this thread, and anyone who reads it objectively, can see that. There has been no contradiction in anything I have stated, and if there has been ANY misunderstanding regarding my intent, I have clarified it absolutely and in no uncertain terms, but you want to insist I have made "contradictory propositions." 

I don't blame you man, the beating you've taken in this thread is brutal and embarrassing, especially to an egomaniac like yourself. It's completely understandable, you don't want to debate the thread topic anymore, because I made you look like an illogical idiot when you tried. Still, I can't let you get away with outright lies about what I've said.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > How could I post for you? You don't know even know what you are saying. I quoted two contradictory propositions from you. As usual, you try and skirt around the issue and don't actually address what I'm saying.
> ...



I think you are a little bit insane.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> I think you are a little bit insane.



Really? Because, that's a whole lot nicer than what I think about you.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are a little bit insane.
> ...



Tell me: How can I be misquoting you, when I am quoting you verbatim?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> You know, this whole thread is extremely disappointing to me.* Page after page of morons wading in to proclaim "there is no proof of god" as if they haven't even read the OP,* a few ruthless god-hating warriors, refusing to remain on topic and discuss this reasonably, a few more antagonists who have no intention of an honest debate, and idiots like you, who want to try and manipulate my words into a "gotchya" moment. I wanted to talk with others who realize a spiritual realm, but don't necessarily subscribe to religious dogma. I wanted to explore the possibilities of Astral Projection, and the Astral plane. You know, with OPEN MINDED people who aren't afraid to explore possibilities, because they are too freaking filled with hate for Christianity!



Then why did you title this thread as "*Definitive Proof that GOD Exists*"? You literally begged for people to come here and expose your nonsense and when they did so you resorted to crude insults because you could not refute their logic and reason. The only person you should be blaming for your disappointment is yourself but it is readily apparent that you lack the inherent honesty necessary to recognize your own shortcomings. You are about as far from spirituality and astral planes as it is possible to get. Discussing spirituality with you would be like discussing quantum physics with a pet rock.


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2013)

Spirituality is one's own private journey.  It has no need to involve anyone else in that process.  Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet.  This bickering about it is stupid.


----------



## fyrenza (May 10, 2013)

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfuWXRZe9yA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfuWXRZe9yA[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Spirituality is one's own private journey.  It has no need to involve anyone else in that process.  Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet.  This bickering about it is stupid.



I suspect the OP'er has suffered from an embarrassing lack of credibility with the ill considered thread title "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". Such a false and bellicose claim was doomed to fail. Having abandoned that claim, it was on to plow more furrows of "spirituality". 

Such are the wages of proselytizing gone bad.


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmOZFAYeurY]Moody Blues - Question - Royal Albert Hall - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jz1dVjIe7E]The Moody Blues Legend of a Mind - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... _you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy._ I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Like I said, you are a lousy liar. All you have to do is scroll back a few posts and you will see I not only included that quote when you falsely claimed you were taken out of context, I highlighted it is red. And there was nothing smart assed about it.

Any fool can tell the truth, but *it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.*
    Samuel Butler

And I raised a question about Christ as a contrary example of a claim you made about SPIRITUALITY, not religion. 

You must be proud of yourself being made a fool of by morons and idiots.


----------



## G.T. (May 10, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



No, its theists and atheists who both lack creative thinking skills. The one true answer is the agnostic, because whether we know it ir are deluded enough not to know it, all of us ARE agnostic, in "not knowing." Now, some may be so full of well intentioned belief that they think they really know, but thats because theyre not that deep of thinkers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Hollie you lack creativity same ol boring responses.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Are you two stocking me lol.


----------



## amrchaos (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > If there is a realm where intelligence can exist without the physical , then spiritual existance could reside in such a realm.
> ...



So morality--or maybe I should use a more general term, ethics--is not reasoned but revealed?

Tell me--If I plan to strike a man, is it not rational to expect some type of retaliation--or am I informed by some religion not to do so?

Tell me--If I stole an object from some one, should I also not expect some actions against me to return the object at the least, or is there a religion that tells us not to do so?

Also Tell me--which religion declared Slavery an evil, or was it reasoning that led man to this conclusion?

We are rationalizing what is just and injust everyday without need to reference a holy book of any religion.  Wether or not you believe this is not at question, but the fact that this is done is a matter of fact.

We do this in our justice systems--everyday
We do this in the construction of our laws-everyday.

To argue the opposite--that man can not construct an ethical law--which are the basis for a moral code-- is to claim man himself is incapable of creating any law of some ethical quality without referencing a religious text.

But this is done everyday.

P.S.--the reason I am using the general term ethics because some choose to associate "morality" only with a religion. In other words, their argument is that a moral code is a system of ethics espoused by a religion.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You know, this whole thread is extremely disappointing to me.* Page after page of morons wading in to proclaim "there is no proof of god" as if they haven't even read the OP,* a few ruthless god-hating warriors, refusing to remain on topic and discuss this reasonably, a few more antagonists who have no intention of an honest debate, and idiots like you, who want to try and manipulate my words into a "gotchya" moment. I wanted to talk with others who realize a spiritual realm, but don't necessarily subscribe to religious dogma. I wanted to explore the possibilities of Astral Projection, and the Astral plane. You know, with OPEN MINDED people who aren't afraid to explore possibilities, because they are too freaking filled with hate for Christianity!
> ...



But you don't "expose nonsense" by popping in to say "god doesn't exist." That is simply an emphatic claim with no basis or supporting argument. Logic and reason have been on my side since I posted the OP, and I've pointed out exactly how that is the case. 

*Definitive Proof that GOD Exists* can be interpreted differently, depending on what you are talking about. The evidence which makes the proof definitive, is spiritual evidence, which you don't accept. First two paragraphs of my OP, address this very point. You've not refuted the point, no one has. GOD is a metaphoric term used, in this case, to distinguish the spiritual entity humans have connected with for the duration of the species. You've mistakenly interpreted this term to mean some religious manifestation, and I have repeatedly had to correct this misconception. Finally, the word "exists" and how it does not mean physical existence, since we are not talking about a physical entity. Therefore, a more suitable title might have been: *Definitive proof for those who accept spiritual evidence, that some spiritual entity greater than self, exists in a spiritual sense.* But you have to actually READ the OP to comprehend this. Those who simply popped in to proclaim "god doesn't exist," have not read the OP, or don't comprehend what was said. 



Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Spirituality is one's own private journey.  It has no need to involve anyone else in that process.  Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet.  This bickering about it is stupid.
> ...



Uhm, there is nothing "ill-considered" about the thread title. You've not proven my argument false, and I am not the least bit embarrassed by that. 

Proselytizing? Where have I done that? Oh, that's right, I basically said I was an Atheist, is THAT what you meant? My repeated denunciation of organized religion, might be construed as proselytization... I hadn't considered that. However, I didn't raise this in the OP, it was only mentioned after repeatedly having to correct people who can't distinguish spirituality from religion. 

My apologies to those who believe in a Christian God, I didn't mean to be proselytizing.


----------



## amrchaos (May 10, 2013)

fyrenza said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument  from popularity). It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It doesnt make it true. It wouldn't matter if everyone human ever was devoutly religious... That doesn't mean a god exists.
> ...



Actually, no

Because everyone believes something is true does not make it true.

For example, belief in a lie does not change the lie into truth.  Regardless of how many, or if everyone, believes in that lie.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Spirituality is one's own private journey.  It has no need to involve anyone else in that process.  Everything you need to know to get started and guide you along is in print and is certainly available now on the internet.  This bickering about it is stupid.



Wow, an actual acknowledgement spirituality exists? Is that what I am hearing? 

You are right, by the way. Spiritual connection is personal and individual, it has absolutely no purpose to someone who rejects spirituality. Most of the "bickering" here, has been with those who mistake spiritual connection with religious dogma, unless you count newpolitics posts, which mostly have nothing to do with the OP, and are just bickering about unrelated nonsense. 

And I am extremely sorry if you have interpreted anything about this thread, to be me trying to win over your soul or whatever. I assure you, I don't care one whit, whether you ever accept a spiritual god's existence. I certainly hope I don't cause you to be a bible-thumping Jesus freak, we have enough of those. I suppose the reason behind my enlightening OP, is to have people question their thinking, and challenge their perspectives, because this is how we grow as people. If you want to totally reject my argument, that's fine with me, I have no inclination to convince you of the spiritual energy I know exists. As far as I am concerned, this simply gives me an attribute you lack as a human. An advantageous attribute, like homosapiens had over neanderthals.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> Actually, no
> 
> Because everyone believes something is true does not make it true.
> 
> For example, belief in a lie does not change the lie into truth.  Regardless of how many, or if everyone, believes in that lie.



In other words, it doesn't matter how many people believe there is no such thing as god? 

Good point!


----------



## amrchaos (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, no
> ...



OR

How many believe there is a living god..it can go either way and does not clarify what is actually true.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you  know what debate is.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you  know what debate is.



What you've done in this thread is not debate. I have no doubt that, inside your head, you have brilliantly refuted all my arguments and won the debate, but the reality of what you've posted, doesn't show that at all. You continue to want to take up space in the thread, arguing about things that have nothing to do with the topic. Here, you are making an argument that you have been debating. To debate the topic, you have to remain on topic, and you've demonstrated an inability to do that for more than 10 pages.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You shouldn't expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Observation does not indicate anything, except that humans have always been intrinsically tied to spiritual belief.



Let me break this down for you. You have two contradictory propositions here, and you don't even know it.

1.) observation does not indicate anything.

2.) Humans have always been tied to spiritual belief

The problem, is that Spiritual belief is acquired only after observation of the world around us, yet, "observation indicates nothing" according to you. You have just admitted that spiritual belief indicates nothing, since it is acquired through observation, which indicates nothing. This runs contradictory to your claim that humans' spiritual belief is a true belief, and is special pleading to say that observations normally indicate nothing, but in the case of spiritual belief , they indicate truth.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

A response to your nonsense invocation of "Darwin": 

Humans made up stories about gods to deal with unanswerable questions. We also did not understand death, and so created religious belief to deal with this unknown. If you keep these conditions constant enough for 200,000 years, it becomes natural for us, and it becomes a matter of social pressure to believe. This is where evolution comes in. Anyone that didn't believe was not trusted and considered an outcast, and therefore didn't mate and reproduce. People didn't have a choice to disbelieve. It was a matter of social credibility within the population, which was a matter of life and death. Plus, there was no other way of understanding the world, which gave it a natural incentive for each individual. So essentially, people were forced into religious belief. To This day, atheists are still the most distrusted group, and it is based on our evolutionary upbringing, where religious belief was a matter of life and death: if you didn't believe, you were killed. Therefore, this does not indicate truth about the universe, only about about the way we organized ourselves socially. It is a self-regulatory mechanism for social control and cohesion. Evolutionarily, it makes perfect sense, without the actual existence of the spiritual. This is all religious and spiritual belief has ever been. It says nothing about the actual universe, and whether there is a a god. 

If anything, atheists died for their lack of belief in gods. According to your logic, this demonstrates that no gods exist.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Right, but I know of no one who thinks there is a "living god" ...as in, physical flesh and blood. God is a spiritual entity, not a physically living being. The non-god-believers keep demanding that proof be presented for god, but they reject the spiritual evidence which proves a spiritual entity. Here, you indicate the notion of a "living" god, which cannot logically exist, since spiritual entities aren't living physical beings. 

Now, either one of two things apply here, you believe people who claim belief in god are imagining a person who doesn't really exist, or you know that god is spiritual, and can never be proven with physical evidence alone. 

What simply can't be denied, regardless of what your beliefs are, is that human beings have always been spiritually hardwired. It is the defining characteristic which makes us unique among all living creatures. Through years of war and persecution, enlightenment and scientific answers to the great 'unknowns' of ancient man, spiritual nature in humans still remains as strong as ever. It can't be beaten out of man, it can't be enlightened out of man, and it can't be ridiculed out of man. Does that mean it's "real?" Well, it's obvious that spiritual connection to SOMETHING is real, we've been doing it for 70,000 years.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Heres a bit of enlightenment for you: Im not required to disprove anything. 
Perhaps you have forgotten but it was you who closed the OP with the falsely attributed comment So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

You have subsequently attempted to offer an ill-defined and poorly supported term, spirituality, as evidence for some alleged supernatural entity or realm that you are unable to effectively communicate, much less offer support for.

Neither I nor anyone else is under any requirement to "disprove" your claims. In no grown-up discussion is there a requirement to disprove the non-existence of _anything_. 

I might have addressed this elsewhere, but for the new folks:

You cannot require "disproof of that which is not" as a standard because you are establishing a fallacious standard by definition. If you can demand, "my claim cannot be disproven but not demand that the asserter prove there actually is reason to accept a claim, then anyone can counter your demand _using your own standard_:

Thus, I do have proof disproving your false claim of Definitive proof that gods exists!,
prove that I do not. See? You have established that "prove it isn't" is a viable standard, and I am merely accepting your standards and playing it right back at you. I cannot be held to task for this, since if it is okay for you to have such a standard, I can have such a standard as well.

Therefore, it must be the asserter of all positive (i.e., such and such exists) premises to prove their assertion. With equal validity, I cannot "prove there isn't" a Santa Claus, leprechauns, gnomes, werewolves, etc. etc. etc., but we do not go around insisting there be an establishment of proof of non-existence for those things. Why does the assertion of an alleged supernatural entity get past this same standard?


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> fyrenza said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Nicely stated.

As Anatole France has said, "_Just because 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it doesn't mean it's not a foolish thing_".


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"_God is a spiritual entity, not a physically living being"_

Your comment might have been valid had you simply appended, "because I say so" to your sentence. We could have pointed and laughed. 

Unfortunately, we're left with you making totally unsupported and unproven claims so we're left to... well... point and laugh.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insinuating that I am not debating? I don't think you  know what debate is.
> ...



You presented an argument. I pointed out the logical flaws and have logically shown why your premises don't necessarily give you your conclusions, which is all I need to do. This is called refutation. All together, This is called debate. You seem to think debate it where everyone agrees with you and you have a big party with all of your friends.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> A response to your nonsense invocation of "Darwin":
> 
> Humans made up stories about gods to deal with unanswerable questions. We also did not understand death, and so created religious belief to deal with this unknown. If you keep these conditions constant enough for 200,000 years, it becomes natural for us, and it becomes a matter of social pressure to believe. This is where evolution comes in. Anyone that didn't believe was not trusted and considered an outcast, and therefore didn't mate and reproduce. People didn't have a choice to disbelieve. It was a matter of social credibility within the population, which was a matter of life and death. Plus, there was no other way of understanding the world, which gave it a natural incentive for each individual. So essentially, people were forced into religious belief. To This day, atheists are still the most distrusted group, and it is based on our evolutionary upbringing, where religious belief was a matter of life and death: if you didn't believe, you were killed. Therefore, this does not indicate truth about the universe, only about about the way we organized ourselves socially. It is a self-regulatory mechanism for social cooperation. This is all religious and spiritual belief has ever been. It says nothing about the actual universe, and whether there is a a god.
> 
> If anything, atheists died for their lack of belief in gods. According to your logic, this demonstrates that no gods exist.



And I can completely debunk every single point you've raised. No living thing we've ever observed, exhibits behavior it totally made up so it could answer questions. There is no physical or scientific biological evidence that living things need to understand death. Yet, you are arguing this was so essential to early humans, they invented spirituality to deal with it. This defies both nature and Darwinism, but you are still clinging to it as a valid reason. 

History shows, an abundance of wars and brutal persecution of humans who professed spiritual beliefs. For the billions of humans who were executed, this certainly wasn't an attribute which contributed to survival of the species. Again, your argument defies Darwin and simply fails. Finally, we have the modern advent of scientific discovery, which has essentially answered ALL questions of the unknown, held by ancient man. IF this were the justification for human spiritual belief, we would have seen a dramatic decline in spiritual belief, much the same as we've seen with superstitions. We don't. As of now, the same relative percentage of humans are spiritual, as they've always been, it is unchanged. In the most "atheistic" country in the world, nearly 75% believe a spiritual realm exists or it's possible. So we see NO indication that man is becoming less spiritual with the advent of scientific explanation. This DESTROYS your argument to the contrary. 

I absolutely LOVED this point you made: 
*Plus, there was no other way of understanding the world, which gave it a natural incentive for each individual.*

There was no other way... you said it yourself. The thing that makes humans distinctly different than any other living creature, is our ability to connect spiritually. Our NEED to explain the unexplained, our NEED to understand death, our NEED to answer the unanswered,   STEMS FROM our spiritual connection, not the other way around.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



No, the claim is indeed proven, there is 70,000 years of evidence to support the claim. Billions of first-hand witnesses to the existence of a spiritual god, who profoundly believed in a spiritual entity greater than self, many of whom, gave their lives to defend their belief.

Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



If you can't disprove the OP argument, then you need to shut your yap, and move on. No need for you to priss in here and proclaim you've "debunked arguments" and "exposed nonsense" when you haven't. 

In my OP argument, the first two points of the argument are centered on definition and understanding of terms. I clearly stated, and you have confirmed, that people who do not accept or recognize spiritual evidence, can never have god "proven" to them, it's illogical and impossible to do so. If the physical evidence to prove god were ever discovered, god would cease to be a "spiritual entity" and would become a supportable physical entity. While it's not entirely impossible that we could discover physical evidence of god, it is highly illogical to expect it. God is not of the physical universe, god is spiritual in nature. 

So, how can we "prove" something spiritually exists? We must acknowledge at the spiritual evidence. We have 70,000 years of an upper primate, exhibiting a profound and distinct attribute of spiritual behavior, and according to what we DO KNOW, this sort of thing simply does not occur in nature unless there is something to it. You can give me NO example of ANY living thing, just doing something for all of it's existence, for no apparent reason. Regardless of whether this one point "proves" a spiritual god, it certainly proves humans believe there is something greater than self, and not only do they believe it, they PROFOUNDLY believe it. This belief can't be stomped out of the hearts of man, it remains the most definitive characteristic of the species. 

To casually dismiss this as "delusion" or "explaining the unknown" is insulting to science and the spirit of scientific method. You've simply dismissed the problem because of a variable you claim is unknown.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your demands that your subjective opinions cannot be refuted is nonsense. By applying your fallacious "standards", such as they are, we can thus assume the undeniable existence of Bigfoot, space aliens, the Loch Ness monster, conceptions of gods and demons, etc., and all manner of supernatural _objects de Art_ simply because of a history of human fear and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I've yet to be presented with a single, verifiable piece of evidence that supports your opinions regarding this "spirituality", gods, or whatever you are rattling on about but are unable to define. 

"Because a lot of people believe it" is hardly a reason to accept something as true or factual.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I would appreciate you providing, by way of a rigorous exampling of the Scientific Method, a proof of "spirituality".

Thrill us, won't you?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > A response to your nonsense invocation of "Darwin":
> ...



Our need to explain is a result of our intellectual ability, which results in our ability to ask questions that can not be left unaddressed, merely by having asked them. They are irresistible questions, and once asked, a non-answer is simply too much for some people to handle. Therefore, if we don't have an answer, we will make one. Everything we don't or can't know, is deposited into a concept called "god." This concept has been ever diminishing. Extrapolating this trend, it is probable that god doesn't exist. This is known as the god of the gaps.

You have not refuted any of the points I have laid out, and again misuse and misunderstood the theory of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie are you really this dense ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > fyrenza said:
> ...



What I keep thinking about naturalists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



opposing arguments are put forward ?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't need to put up an additional Argument. I simply need to refute his own argument, which I've done, repeatedly.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I have seen no evidence proving man has existed for 70,000 years but I do agree with your greater point man has always possessed a spiritual belief as long as we have existed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You can't and yes you have to explain away the evidence he has presented claiming they were all ignorant and brainwashed won't work here. Then you don't know what a debate is.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Precisely. The OP made certain assumptions that have been exposed as utterly baseless. The onus now shifts back to the OP to overturn the exposure. So far he has has failed at every attempt and resorted to deflections, denials, lies, insults and self pity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Let me help you here. Boss is claiming since man has existed we have had spiritual beliefs You are saying there is  no evidence to have spiritual beliefs. He has presented evidence for his claim you however have not, Got it ? that is the debate of opposing views.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are we to believe that you actually _do_ expect cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be met with serious consideration?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation. Now he must counter our refutation, which he has not successfully done. So, our refutation still stands. 

He simply keeps on referring to the OP, the implication being, that "there is no possible refutation." He simply will not accept any refutation, because he has already decided, a priori, that his argument is airtight.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Don't put words in my mouth. Those people must have made you look so silly you keep bringing them up. If you have a bone to pick with them by all means take it up with them.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



You confuse "spiritual" belief with the assignment of, collectively, gods, demons, supernaturalism, fear and superstition to completely natural phenomenon.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



So we have this straight what was his claim ? What was your refutation ?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This didn't make much sense.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm just identifying that you have frequently cut and pasted from Harun Yahya in attempts to support your belief in gods and a young (6,000 year old) earth.


----------



## MaryL (May 10, 2013)

I pray and nothing happens, and I can also curse god and nothing happens. (Sorry, I have). Thing is, nothing definitive happens, Proof? Maybe it&#8217;s all just random meaningless stuff that happened as a result of processes that we humans haven&#8217;t a concept for nor can control? 99% of all the species that existed on this planet  are now extinct, what makes human beings so special?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Dude. Seriously. Your syntax is horrible. Please correct it because I can't decipher what you are even trying to say.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're a liar.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



False.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



This is incoherent, considering that most humans throughout history have not been naturalists. It's just funny to see you try to flip the tables not realizing it is self-refuting.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Dude seriously. It came from your post 

Quote from NP 
Exactly. He made a claim. We offer a refutation.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



He hasn't presented a shred of actual evidence. He has only presented an opinion and multiple logical fallacies.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



My syntax was fine. Yours made any attempt at communication unintelligible. I'm happy to respond, but I honestly could not understand you. Please rephrase or do whatever you have to do to make it intelligible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I did copy and paste sometimes and so did you but your source was not who I quoted. I mainly copy and pasted because the conversation became redundant. You could not hold a scientific debate in your own words so you had to copy and paste paragraphs and links. What was really revealing was you would do it with things that did not answer the questions put to you so please stay on topic in this thread or leave.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The OP presents such an argument, you simply reject spiritual evidence. It's impossible to prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence alone, if that could be done, it would be a physical entity. But we can objectively use the scientific method to examine the spiritual and physical evidence, and make a definitive argument for "existence of god." Again, "existence" means in a spiritual sense, which your mind is closed to the possibility of. If you dismiss the spiritual evidence, the physical evidence alone means nothing, god can't be proven with physical evidence, since god is a spiritual entity. The combination of spiritual evidence, with what we know and understand about animal behavior, presents a valid and legitimate argument for the existence (spiritually, not physically) of something spiritual.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



So are you saying man has not always been spiritual ?


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I grant this premise. But how are you getting from this to "god exists"? This is the leap in logic that has not been justified or thoroughly explained. So far, it has been bridged by a logical fallacy only: the argument from popularity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



So was mine, you were just avoiding the question. If he didn't present evidence what was your refutation  you presented  Now that is contradicting yourself.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You called me a liar for pointing out that you cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, then you abruptly identify that, (oops), you did precisely that. 

Get it together.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No, it most certainly was not fine. 

My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your "spiritual" evidence consists of claiming, "well, a lot of believe it, therefore it must be true". 

That's not evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



 Harun Yahya this is not who I quoted get it together.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



It is logical to believe in a designer it is illogical to believe everything just came in to existence on it's own.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I understand that you believe this, but that doesn't make it true. You have to show this, logically. Otherwise, this is just a proof by assertion, another logical fallacy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Because you reject all evidence that supports the creators existence. Please don't ask me to prove it because you didn't understand it the first 100 times I proved it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



There is scientific evidence that supports my view. There is no scientific evidence rejecting my view.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Neither of you have refuted anything or exposed anything as baseless. We can go over the six main points of the OP again, if we need to, along with your refutations, and nowhere will we find where you've made a credible case. 

Point #1: *If you don't accept spiritual evidence, a spiritual entity can never be "proven."*

Where is your refutation of that point, anywhere in this thread? Looks like you only continue to reaffirm that point, over and over and over and over and over again. 

Point #2: *You must comprehend the difference between a physical and spiritual nature, and what "exists" means when applied. Otherwise, there is no way to prove spiritual existence, because it's not physical and will never be.* 

Where have you exposed the baselessness of this argument? It's basic logic, and again, you have demonstrated by your posts, it is entirely accurate. 

Point #3: *70,000 years of human history shows an intrinsic and inherent attribute of spirituality, which remains our most defining characteristic over all other animals. *

You claim this is mass delusion, or fear of death, or to explain the unknown, yet we see no sign of this behavior in any other species, including upper primates who share 96% of our DNA, and exhibit cognitive thought. Even with science answering every unknown that ancient man possessed, 95% of the species remains spiritual in nature. Only 5% report to be Nihilists. 

Point #4: *Billions of people have professed a profound spiritual belief in something greater than self, and attribute "blessings and/ore miracles" to this spiritual nature. *

You reject spiritual evidence, so this all becomes circumstantial and subjective. Your explanation for why humans are spiritually moved to do certain things, is coincidence. Where are you refuting the argument? I don't see that! I see you rejecting the evidence and refusing to accept it. I see you dismissing it because you don't accept spiritual evidence, but I do not see where you refuted the argument at all. 

Point #5: *Darwin's theory of evolution states that inherent behavior in animals is present for a fundamental reason and purpose to the species. Useless attributes are discarded through natural selection, as species survival trumps the attribute.* 

Where have you refuted this point? The only explanation I've seen anyone present, is that this behavior serves a fundamental purpose to "explain the unknown," but there is no explanation for why man needs this, when no other species seems to give a shit. And even IF we accept this theory, why hasn't there been a HUGE drop-off in human spirituality over the past 300-500 years, as science explained away all these unknowns? 

Point #6: *Occam's razor, a philosophy on logical evaluations, states that the best place to begin objective analysis is with the simplest explanation, and this is the most likely explanation until something is presented with more explanatory power. The simplest explanation for human's profound spiritual beliefs, is that a spiritual nature does exist. *

Where have you refuted this point? Newpolitics claims that Occam forbids his philosophy from being applied to spiritual evidence, since newpolitics doesn't believe in it. But I can find nothing on the Wiki about this, nor anywhere else I have researched, it seems the philosophy applies to any evaluation, regardless of realm. 


Now, I have once again presented the synopsis of the argument in the OP, along with everything that you all have "refuted" along the way, and I'm sorry, I don't see where you have "dismantled the argument" or "proven it to be baseless" in any way. I see a bunch of determined god-haters, who have closed their minds to any possibility outside the physical universe, who want to pretend they have "won" an argument.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 10, 2013)

MaryL said:


> I pray and nothing happens, and* I can also curse god and nothing happens.* (Sorry, I have). Thing is, nothing definitive happens, Proof? Maybe its all just random meaningless stuff that happened as a result of processes that we humans havent a concept for nor can control? 99% of all the species that existed on this planet  are now extinct, what makes human beings so special?



What good is having a God if you cannot curse him occasionally? Isn't it all just part of the "Job" description?


----------



## Vandalshandle (May 10, 2013)

God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!

No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)



The OP most certainly did not concede there was no scientific evidence, it actually presented some very valid scientific evidence. The OP states there is no PHYSICAL evidence that can prove spiritual existence of a spiritual entity. Science only deals with the physical realm, and while we can certainly use knowledge from science to support the argument for spirituality, we can't "prove existence" in a physical nature, because such a thing is illogical. 

So you're back on phishing for a definition again? We've covered this already, you do not need to "define" something, in order to confirm it exists. A spiritual power can exist without conforming to any preconceived notion of it's characteristics.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!
> 
> No, wait...that was Santa Clause..........



A man goes to board a flight for a business trip. Something he has done practically every day for many years. Only, this particular day, he is suddenly overcome by this ominous feeling, he can't explain it, but he is so moved by it, that he doesn't board the plane. The plane crashes and kills everyone on board.  Where did that feeling come from? Santa Claus? 

Again, this is anecdotal to you because it is spiritual evidence, but it has happened... to millions of people... over thousands of years. 

A man is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas. The doctors say it will be a miracle if he lives more than 6 months. His church and family begin a prayer vigil, asking God for a miracle. Six months later the same doctors scratch their heads, because his body is free from cancer. Did Santa Claus make his cancer vanish with no medical explanation? 

Again, more spiritual evidence you reject, because your mind is closed to the possibility. But these kind of things happen every day, and millions of humans firmly believe it is the result of spiritual power beyond our realm, which is why they developed a special word to apply to such phenomenon, called "blessings."


----------



## MaryL (May 10, 2013)

Why are we even debating this topic?  God is a perennial tweak to our mortal consciousness. God&#8217;s existence, does it really matter? Why?


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.



No, I demonstrated that you are demanding something illogical to start with, and since you can't receive this illogical thing, you are rejecting the argument. You demand physical proof, which does not logically apply to spiritual entities. You refuse spiritual proof, which is the only evidence that can logically confirm existence of a spiritual entity. YOU are the logical fallacy in the argument, YOU refuse to accept logical evidence because you don't believe in it, and you continue to demand illogical evidence you can never obtain, because IF that happened, god would be a physical entity, defined by physical evidence. 

The argument is far from defeated.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!
> ...



According to the Boss there have been planes around for "over thousands of years"? Premonitions are *NOT* evidence of a deity. Given the millions of possible scenarios the probability of coincidence exists. Note that there is no record of those who had premonitions but still went ahead and boarded the flights and *NOTHING* happened. Misdiagnoses are not uncommon either. Boss just picks and chooses what he believes to be "spiritual evidence" because his "mind is closed to the possibility" of all of the other perfectly rational explanations.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > There is no scientific evidence for god, and here you are blatantly contradicting the OP which concedes this, so go start your own thread if you want to make a different argument for a different definition of god, because clearly yours and boss's are different (from what I've been able to gather of boss's, since he feels content in not supplying a definition.)
> ...



The OP most certainly did concede that no scientific evidence exists for god. Once again, you are going back on yourself.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > My refutation uses logic to show that his conclusions can not be gotten to from his premises without serious logical fallacies. All I have to do is point out these logic fallacies, and you no longer have your conclusions, and the argument is defeated. It is that simple. You may agree with the conclusion (that god exists) but this has not been achieved logically from the premises.
> ...



Yes. Your argument is done. There is nothing logical about  creating a separate category of evidence out of thin air, and then presupposing that this has any tie to reality.

I can do the same thing. The Bloo-Bloo exists, but can only be seen if you accept bloo-evidence.... I can create imaginary categories all day and claim internal consistency, but this says nothing about the reality we live in.


----------



## S.J. (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!
> ...


They DO happen every day.  I have worked outside in the sun for over 20 years.  In around 2005, I developed a spot next to my eye, that started out as a freckle.  Over the next several years it became darker and grew in size.  Then last year it began to get texture and I started getting pain in my eye.  I finally went to the doctor and was told it was cancer.  About 3 months ago I started getting pains in my back and was having dizzy spells and getting light headed.  
I prayed that night to be healed of whatever was wrong.  The next morning the pain in my back was gone, and my daughter commented that the spot on my face looked smaller.  I looked at it in the mirror and it did look smaller.  The next morning it had shrunk by about half.  The third day it was gone, except for a couple of dots.  By the end of the week, there was no trace of it.
The doctor couldn't believe it just disappeared, said it was impossible, yet it disappeared.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> .
> 
> Now.... my claim is indeed, not supported by physical proof. There is no physical god. Unless you acknowledge the spiritual realm, god can never be proven to "exist" because to "exist" only means "in a physical state" to you. Something that does not possess a physical state, can't be "proven" to someone who only accepts physical proof. For us to objectively evaluate the question of a spiritual existence, we HAVE TO look at spiritual evidence, if we've closed our minds to this, and do not consider this valid "proof," then god can't ever be "proven." God does not reside in the physical realm, and has no physical evidence of existence, and it's illogical to expect this.




You just unknowingly admitted there is no scientific evidence for god. 

Science is bounded by methodological naturalism, which means only that which manifests in physical reality is subject to the Scientific method. To say god has no possible physical manifestation, as you did, precludes it from scientific inquiry. Hence, there can not be any scientific evidence for god. If you dance around this logic, then you are hopeless and simply do not care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then why are we debating?


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I hadn't realized you proved the existence of a "creator". Kindly identify where you provided such proof. Was your "pwoof" in a link to Harun Yahya?


----------



## MaryL (May 10, 2013)

Religion is a beautiful placebo. Science is, well hard facts, If I had hard facts ALLHA or JESUS Really did all that magical mystical  stuff, sans all the  mysticism,  I and most of the rest of us would support  religion in a heartbeat. But that isn't happening. Jesus being resurrected from the grave to prove we are all immortal. Why? Why didnt god cleanse the world of sin to begin with? Why not?  God LOVES us enough to condemn us to mortality when he controls the totality of the universe of all time? Something isnt adding up here.  Religion is nonsense.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



There is no PHYSICAL scientific evidence, *alone*, that proves god's existence. Science is not bound by anything, it examines physical possibility. While there is no current evidence of physical spirituality, it does not mean that science can never discover it. Science simply is not confined to what YOU believe, and nothing more. My argument actually uses physical science, where physical science can be helpful in evaluation of the question. The study of animal behaviors, for instance. This is a very physical thing that we can indeed observe and evaluate with science. But this one piece of physical science doesn't prove a spiritual entity, in order to prove a spiritual entity, we have to also look at spiritual evidence, which you refuse to do, no matter how powerful it is.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What other kind of scientific evidence is there, besides physical? None.  This is the concept of methodological naturalism, and is what science is bounded to.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Religion is a beautiful placebo. Science is, well hard facts, If I had hard facts ALLHA or JESUS Really did all that magical mystical  stuff, sans all the  mysticism,  I and most of the rest of us would support  religion in a heartbeat. But that isn't happening. Jesus being resurrected from the grave to prove we are all immortal. Why? Why didnt god cleanse the world of sin to begin with? Why not?  God LOVES us enough to condemn us to mortality when he controls the totality of the universe of all time? Something isnt adding up here.  Religion is nonsense.



I'm sorry, but science is most definitely not "hard facts." In fact, virtually everything in science is a prediction of probability, not a conclusion or fact. 

Now Mary, most all of your post deals with a religious manifestation of god, practiced by Christian believers. Is there a short-circuit in your mind that makes you automatically assume that any time "god" or "spiritual" is discussed, it can only possibly mean this particular incarnation made by men? Are you just not capable of understanding that my argument regarding human spirituality doesn't have beans to do with religious constructions? Because I keep having to explain this here, as you and others continue to speak as if I am making an argument for existence of a particular type of god. 

I can join you in bashing on Christians, if that makes you feel better? Why does an 'omnipotent' god have human attributes like "anger" and "jealousy?" If the Christian god wants us to all be without sin, why doesn't he just make us behave this way? Or better yet, why not just bestow spiritual awareness on you, so that you have no doubt in your mind that spirituality exists? If someone is purely evil, why does god have to wait until he dies to send him to hell, why not just zap his ass to hell immediately? All of these questions are compelling in a debate of theology and religious belief, but that is not the question I have argued. 

I am a non-religious person, many people call me an Atheist. However, I do believe in a spiritual nature, a spiritual force, which resides in a spiritual realm of our universe. To me, THAT is GOD. I routinely connect with this force in my personal life, so I KNOW it exists, I don't have to prove it to myself. When people tell me god doesn't exist, it's like me telling you that your mother doesn't exist. Over the course of human history, BILLIONS and BILLIONS of humans have experienced this same connection to something spiritual. The fact that you continue to reject it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The fact that it can't be proven with physical science, is completely logical, since it is not of the physical realm.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

"Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[16] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that *"Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today" *

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." *It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."*

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> What other kind of scientific evidence is there, besides physical? None.  This is the concept of methodological naturalism, and is what science is bounded to.



Again, the parts of physical science I used in my argument, are related to physical nature, physical observation, and methodological naturalism. The problem is, these things alone, can not definitively prove (or disprove) an entity that is not physical. It is illogical to expect this. 

Science, again, is not "bound" by anything. To "bound" science, only to the things we currently know and comprehend, is simply ignorant of science and the scientific method. You can say that we have no present scientific proof for things which are spiritual, but it doesn't mean that will forever be the case, you simply don't know what hasn't been discovered... yes, I know, that must be a shocker to someone with your ego and brain, but it's true.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > What other kind of scientific evidence is there, besides physical? None.  This is the concept of methodological naturalism, and is what science is bounded to.
> ...




You know not of what you write. Science is bound by methodological naturalism. 


"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.


However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Nothing of your "physical evidence" point anywhere near a god.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> "Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[16] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that *"Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today" *
> 
> "Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." *It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."*
> 
> Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



All you are doing, is continuing to make the point I made in the OP. Physical science alone, can never explain the supernatural or spiritual. Yet this is the only thing you will accept as valid evidence. You reject spiritual evidence, which is why god can never be "proven" to you. In my argument, I do use some physical scientific evidence, but I admitted, by itself, it doesn't prove anything. We do know a great deal by observing behavioral attributes in living things, this is physical science.  By itself, it can be dismissed, as you have also proven. 

So I have presented a valid and legitimate argument, which relies on spiritual and physical evidence, and does definitively answer the question of spiritual existence. You refuse to accept the spiritual evidence, and knock over the physical evidence, then proclaim victory. You haven't refuted my argument, you continue to confirm it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Wrong, there is biological evidence that shows it was a purposeful design. You believe in miracles I believe in a designer.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > "Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[16] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that *"Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today" *
> ...



Physical science... as opposed to what? I just demonstrated that there is no other type of science. I don't you don't like being backed into a corner, so please, just concede the point, and this can all end.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



You don't even know how life started but you are certain there is no evidence of God.


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2013)

The words used in the TITLE must stand as any average person would assume them to mean.  God means what god means as most people assume what god is.

That is the dishonesty of this thread.  

Now once the challenge has been made and the gauntlett thrown down..the OP backtracks in a miriad of paths disclaiming god as the omnipotent sky fairy most envision and the bait and switch is completed as "god" is reduced to something equal to deep personal reflection and halucination.  No longer is there a god of "faith" in THIS fairy tale.  This new incarnation of god is just one of a "lable" covering the thinnest aspects of new age communing with the elements.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Again, this makes no sense. This time, its your usage of the word "miracle" with reference to what I believe. I'm a naturalist. Miracles don't exist.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Who said I am certain? I am certain the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, because it is self-referentially incoherent, but I can not know that no supernatural agent exists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



It would be a miracle for all the molecular machines within a cell to come in to existence naturally each performing a necessary function or life would not exist. That my friend is a miracle unless you're willing to go on record claiming that this natural system possesses intelligence and can think for itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You just claimed certainty.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How do you know it would be a miracle? Can you demonstrate this? No. This is just as stupid as someone saying with certainty that no gods exist. 

Before your knee jerk reaction: I said that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist with certainty, not a god in general.


----------



## newpolitics (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



With respect to your very specific definition of god that is  internally inconsistent? yes, I am claiming certainty. It is just like I know that a square circle doesn't exist. However, this discussion is not about the Christian god. Don't be so narcissistic to think that every conversation about the existence of god is about your definition of god.


----------



## Vandalshandle (May 10, 2013)

The truth of the matter is that God is as real as you need him to be. 

I don't need him to exist at all, My brother and his wife need god to assure them of everlasting life, and to give them the strength to cope with her MS. Me? I tend to think of a bottle of Valium mixed with a cup of applesauce as the ultimate cure for a painful terminal disease.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> The words used in the TITLE must stand as any average person would assume them to mean.  God means what god means as most people assume what god is.
> 
> That is the dishonesty of this thread.
> 
> Now once the challenge has been made and the gauntlett thrown down..the OP backtracks in a miriad of paths disclaiming god as the omnipotent sky fairy most envision and the bait and switch is completed as "god" is reduced to something equal to deep personal reflection and halucination.  No longer is there a god of "faith" in THIS fairy tale.  This new incarnation of god is just one of a "lable" covering the thinnest aspects of new age communing with the elements.



What the hell do you mean, words must stand as the "average" person would assume them? Surely you are kidding? What the hell is an "average" person, someone who thinks like you? Words mean what the user intends them to mean, period! They may be interpreted differently by others, they may be taken completely out of context, but they always mean whatever the user intended, in context of a conversation. How in the world do you manage to even communicate with people, under this assumption? I don't' get that.

There is no dishonesty in the thread title or the thread OP. I set the parameters in the opening paragraphs, and clearly defined what I meant by "definitive proof" as well as "god" and "exist," and explained that the argument has to clarify what these mean, before we can evaluate further. If you are incapable of comprehending spiritual evidence, spiritual existence, and spiritual nature, then you are incapable of understanding the argument. Therefore, you believe we are having a different argument, based on your misinterpretations. That isn't my problem. 

I did not "reduce" god to anything, I simply clarified that "god" in this argument, is a metaphoric representation of the spiritual force humans have always been connected with. I don't need any more definition that this, to prove spiritual existence. If I were trying to prove the Christian manifestation of god exists, I would need a whole lot more evidence for that, and I don't have it. Again, I admit that I cannot prove the Christian version of god exists, and never claimed I could. 

Now it's interesting, I don't personally believe the Christian version of god exists, but I can't prove it doesn't, and I am not going to say it's not possible, like newpolitics has. You see, I don't believe we are confined to only what we currently know, I believe there is very much we don't know, and shouldn't presume we do. This is why science has been such a great thing for mankind, it continues pondering the possibility of things, it doesn't draw conclusions, like newpolitics does. Whenever you have decided that something is not possible, you have stopped practicing science and started practicing faith. Everything is possible, it may not be very probable, but it is possible. 

I pointed out earlier, Prof. Michio Kaku, a noted theoretic physicist, presents his new students with the following problem: _Calculate the probability that your body will deconstruct and re-materialize on the other side of a brick wall._ Of course, newpolitics would chortle... that's impossible! But actually, there is a calculable probability. Kaku says, we would have to calculate longer than the universe has existed, but the probability does indeed exist.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Fortunately, nature does not limit molecules to the choices you dictate. What the natural system of molecules does possess is valence electrons, which causes molecules to assemble themselves in certain specific ways. No intelligence required, only valence electrons.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!
> ...


In your first example, many more millions of people over many more "thousands" of years got off the plane and the plane didn't crash killing no one on board.

In your second example the medical explanation was misdiagnosis. Happens all the time, you see doctors are not infallible.

Again more examples of you closing your mind to any possibility that "blessings" could be nothing more than coincidence or blind luck.


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



All you are doing is continuing to affirm Point #1 of the OP. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people. You have convinced yourself, any admission of spirituality helps make the case for religious people, and you can't have that. You are an intolerant religious bigot, and it is prejudicing your judgement with regard to this question. We can, therefore, dismiss any opinion you have on this topic, you have invalidated yourself. 

In the first example, we aren't talking about other people or what they experienced. I asked for an explanation regarding the person and situation I described, I did not claim this was god at work, I asked for an explanation.... I haven't gotten one. 

In my second example, the man had cancer, they had MRIs and x-rays, tumors were present in his pancreas, and it was confirmed he was Stage 4. This was no misdiagnosis, it  had been diagnosed, tested, verified and confirmed, he actually had Stage 4 cancer. His doctors couldn't explain it, and neither can you. 

And here's the deal, these are just two examples, there are literally millions. Regardless of what "reason" you want to casually dismiss this evidence with, these people went to the grave believing it was due to a spiritual intervention. You can not prove otherwise.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > God exists. I know because when I was six I prayed for a bicycle, and I got it!
> ...



On the contrary, you seem to be confirming a host of negative stereotypes regarding religious fundamentalists.

Youre infuriated that others reject your claims to supernaturalism, gods, and spirituality. That you offer nothing but anecdotal claims, bad analogies and false references shold clue you in to why others are not convinced of your claims. 

Your second example is a hoax. You simply made that up. What man, specifically, was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the Pancreas.  Youre making appeals to miracles with invented scenarios. 

As far as miracles in the past are concerned, clearly a god would realize that such events are not viable or reliably handed down-- no proof exists that validates these ancient miracles that coincidentally occurred during mankind's particularly superstitious tenure on Earth.

So maybe your gods should _actively_ perform miracles more often. And maybe they should be _obvious_, and happen every so often to remind us what's what. I always wonder why the gods "perform miracles" like "miraculous cures" for cancer (which has a spontaneous remission rate anyway) but we never see anyone with a severed limb stand up, reattach their limb, and heal instantaneously. This would demonstrate the ongoing presence of something outside of Man's rational knowledge, and it would be hard to dismiss an ongoing pattern of such events. 

But a note of caution regarding modern miracles.  Modern miracles won't prove ancient ones, but one could easily embrace a reverse empiricism and make the case that modern miracles go a long way towards showing evidence of some power that is wholly inexplicable.

I know the counter argument to this would be, "Well even if the gods did that, some people wouldn't believe it. Such miracles could be dismissed as aliens for instance, or mass hallucinations... so why should they?"

Well, the fact is more people would believe it if they witnessed such things on an ongoing basis, as opposed to the utterly nothing we are experiencing today-- and that peculiar coincidence that as man learns more about his environment, miracles diminish or become vastly more "subtle" or based upon luck (the bus plunged to the bottom of the ravine and only I was saved-- it was a miracle from the Gods! Thank you Gods, and screw those losers who died!") . If such blatantly miraculous things were to occur, I might be convinced, for instance. And the goal is salvation right? Based upon this infinite love?

Anyway, you are free to attack anyone who rejects your false claims of gods, miracles, spirituality and things that go bump in the night but there are so many slippery slopes attending the topic that I think supernaturalists would do better to avoid the whole thing. I suppose creationists and even theistic evolutionists can't do that since their entire worldview still remains firmly built upon a miracle-- that of creation-- as their keystone belief.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> *You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people*.



There is *NO SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE* whatsoever, period! Furthermore your incessant *LYING* about others* rationally* refusing to accept something that does not exist only makes* you *the one who is displaying hatred towards those who don't share your particular religious beliefs.

Spirituality is just a state of mind. Some people have more experience than others when it comes to reaching this state. Meditation is one way to do it, another is prayer and a third is to recite a mantra but the common purpose is to zone out into a state where the mind is divorced from everyday reality and free to indulge in fantasy. You are attempting to claim that this state of mind is the equivalent of "evidence". In a court of law a "state of mind" can be used as "motive" for committing a crime but no one is ever convicted on "motive" alone. There must be other substantial evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In your instance there is no doubt whatsoever that you are playing fast and loose with a "state of mind" and attempting to convince a jury that this constitutes actual "evidence". Furthermore you are deceitfully alleging that everyone who treats your premise with the skepticism that it justly deserves is "guilty" of hating "religious people". You have no actual "evidence" to prove that spurious allegation either. 

This entire thread has been little more than an exercise for you to use your own personal religious beliefs as a club to beat those who don't share them. That is not the kind of religion that any sane and rational person would want to join.


----------



## HUGGY (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The words used in the TITLE must stand as any average person would assume them to mean.  God means what god means as most people assume what god is.
> ...



*What I mean *is that after 671 posts you are still all busy as a bee trying to explain your original post.  If you were all CLEAR and honest-like in the first place your point would have been made say within a reply or two and the actual merits of said point would have been discussed ad nauseum several hundred replies ago.  You are still trying to define the OP.


----------



## edthecynic (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You got an explanation for the plane, coincidence. There is nothing spiritual about coincidence! You are too consumed with hate for anyone who has the capacity to see a little more than what you want to limit them to that you can't accept what is obvious to rational people. Your hate blinds you to reality.

Now that you have given more information in the second case, it is more likely the man and his church are lying rather than a misdiagnose. It never happened and YOU can't prove that it happened. Religious con artists make up claims like that all the time to cheat the sickly out of what little money they have while waiting for their "miracle."

Here's the deal, you are the one making the claim therefore the burden is on YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it.

"He who asserts must also prove" 
- Aristotle


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Let me assure you, I am not infuriated that you have a closed mind. I do feel sorry for people who lack spiritual connection. They tend to be cynical, amoral, discontent, and generally unhappy people. 

The second example is actually a friend of the family, but let me predict, you will accuse me of lying, because you already have. You see, everything has to be a lie, or fallacy, or subjective, or delusional, so that you can maintain your closed mind. It's what you do!



> As far as miracles in the past are concerned, clearly a god would realize that such events are not viable or reliably handed down-- no proof exists that validates these ancient miracles that coincidentally occurred during mankind's particularly superstitious tenure on Earth.



Why are you talking about god like god is a person? Who said miracles were ancient? They happen daily, all over the planet, and this has happened since ancient times. 



> So maybe your gods should _actively_ perform miracles more often. And maybe they should be _obvious_, and happen every so often to remind us what's what.



Why does god now become a plural and belong to me? And how many more miracles would god have to perform for you to stop rejecting them and start believing? Maybe god should zap you with a lightning bolt, so you can find a clue? 



> I always wonder why the gods "perform miracles" like "miraculous cures" for cancer (which has a spontaneous remission rate anyway) but we never see anyone with a severed limb stand up, reattach their limb, and heal instantaneously. This would demonstrate the ongoing presence of something outside of Man's rational knowledge, and it would be hard to dismiss an ongoing pattern of such events.



Well, you have proven, even if this scenario happened, you could find a way to explain it away and continue rejecting god. It would demonstrate nothing to you, and you would claim... meh, happens all the time! 

And let's also be clear about this, humans have never had to rationalize spiritual belief, we are intrinsically tied to it. It's actually irrational to hold the belief you claim, as a Nihilist. 



> But a note of caution regarding modern miracles.  Modern miracles won't prove ancient ones, but one could easily embrace a reverse empiricism and make the case that modern miracles go a long way towards showing evidence of some power that is wholly inexplicable.



Again, miracles could be happening every second, people could be re-attaching limbs left and right, and it would not matter to you. As we clearly see, you will find a reason to disbelieve, regardless of the evidence. It's what you do! 



> I know the counter argument to this would be, "Well even if the gods did that, some people wouldn't believe it. Such miracles could be dismissed as aliens for instance, or mass hallucinations... so why should they?"
> 
> Well, the fact is more people would believe it if they witnessed such things on an ongoing basis, as opposed to the utterly nothing we are experiencing today-- and that peculiar coincidence that as man learns more about his environment, miracles diminish or become vastly more "subtle" or based upon luck (the bus plunged to the bottom of the ravine and only I was saved-- it was a miracle from the Gods!



No, you've already established you don't believe in god, and will come up with whatever skepticism is needed to continue disbelief. It would literally make no difference if god manifested in physical form and came to your house personally to say... look, toots, I am REAL, I do exist! You would still reject god. Your mind is closed to the possibility of god, and you'll find every possible excuse to continue disbelief. 



> Thank you Gods, and screw those losers who died!") . If such blatantly miraculous things were to occur, I might be convinced, for instance. And the goal is salvation right? Based upon this infinite love?



I guarantee, you would NOT be convinced. You would simply point to the fact that such things happen all the time, and aren't miracles, but luck.  And why are you again trying to introduce theological belief in place of spirituality? I don't even know what "salvation" means, nor do I give a shit if you ever receive it. I don't think god loves you, I don't even think god cares who you are. God is a spiritual force, why would a spiritual force have human attributes? Why would it "need" for you to do anything? Do the forces of nature require you to believe in them? Do tornadoes care if you think they are real? 



> Anyway, you are free to attack anyone who rejects your false claims of gods, miracles, spirituality and things that go bump in the night but there are so many slippery slopes attending the topic that I think supernaturalists would do better to avoid the whole thing. I suppose creationists and even theistic evolutionists can't do that since their entire worldview still remains firmly built upon a miracle-- that of creation-- as their keystone belief.



Glad I have your permission, I feel so much better about things.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 11, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Can you demonstrate that a necessary component after necessary component that is needed (Molecular Machines) for transcription and other functions could just naturally appear in the cell without the aid of design ? We have not even touched on Amino acids needing to be in the exact sequence plus them be all Left handed Amino acids not right handed Amino acids.If this is not the case you do not get the proteins needed and you get no life.

Yes if it was not design, what is the chance of this ever happening ? can your side be honest about this ? Complex things we know are built and designed but you don't believe this is the case when it comes to biological organisms.

We know living organisms produce other living organisms and there is no evidence showing otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 11, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



There are limits otherwise we should see new forms of life constantly coming in to existence. If there were no limitations why is it that an organism only reproduces it';s own kind ? Well it's pretty obvious because organisms only possess Genetic data to reproduce what they are.


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



ahhahhahhaa! So we finally see the "end game" to 20 pages of obfuscation, distraction, detraction, and avoiding the topic! It is so you can waltz in at the last minute, and claim the longevity of the thread is evidence the argument has failed. My primary role in the thread, has been to keep it on topic, and clear up gross misconceptions about what I've said, or to correct ignorant people who keep thinking this is a theological debate. I made my points clearly and concisely in the OP, and no one has refuted the argument. The first two points of the argument have consistently been confirmed by you and others. You're still rejecting spiritual evidence, and I predict we can continue another 671 posts, and you'll still reject spiritual evidence. It doesn't matter how well-articulated I am, or how well the OP is written, you are simply going to reject spirituality. You and others have tried, but you can't refute the OP argument, so you have resorted to filling the thread full of shit, so you can now claim the argument failed... oh it was debunked somewhere in this pile of shit, for sure! No one is going to bother reading 20 pages of obfuscation and avoiding the topic, you're hoping they will be lazy enough to pop in here and read your last post, and assume you are right.


----------



## edthecynic (May 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Again you are putting limits on nature that don't exist. Take a virus as an example. No virus can reproduce itself. The virus gets a host to reproduce it. So obviously the host reproduces an organism that is not its own kind.


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people*.
> ...



So you are going to cling to 70,000 years of "mass delusion" to explain human spiritual connection? Yes, there IS spiritual evidence, and you refuse to EVER acknowledge it. We can continue this thread for another 20 pages, and you will STILL not acknowledge it. My thread is NEVER going to change your mind, and I fully understood this when I posted it.

I have stated, at least a dozen time in the thread, that I am not religious, I have no religious beliefs, I am pretty much an Atheist when it comes to organized religion, yet here you are again, trying to accuse me of forcing my religious beliefs on others. Honestly, how can you have a reasonable debate with people who are this dishonest? 

What you and others continue to prove, by insinuating religion, is that you are angry at religion and religious people. You are so spitting mad at them, that any time someone even dares to mention "spirituality" you emotively go into attack mode. You've proven this over and over in the thread. It's sad that you are letting your anger and rage for religion, get in the way of understanding human spirituality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 11, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You are saying there are no limits on nature which easily can be observed.


----------



## HUGGY (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why else would else would I post in this albatross of a circle jerk?  

I have done no such thing as reject spiritual evidense.  None has been offered.  I know a thing or three about that topic and have seen nary a piece of lint of it embeded in this monstrosity.  Wanna talk specifics?  Go for it Obe Won.  Try to leave god out of it.


----------



## dblack (May 11, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



The emperor wears no spiritual evidence.


----------



## G.T. (May 11, 2013)

There is no spiritual evidence. Saying "people do it" is not sufficient, in any adult world.


----------



## Vandalshandle (May 11, 2013)

Most of these posts are too long to read. However, I do sort of scan them, and when I got down to where Boss said:  "I am not infuriated that you have a closed mind. I do feel sorry for people who lack spiritual connection. *They tend to be cynical, amoral, discontent, and generally unhappy people.*", then I knew that there was was so sense in reading the rest. As an athiest, I am too "amoral" to read further....(Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.) I guess that I always knew that I was somewhat cynical, but I had no idea that I was amoral, discontented and unhappy. I think that makes me a sociopath.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Let me assure you, I am not infuriated that you have a closed mind. I do feel sorry for people who lack spiritual connection. They tend to be cynical, amoral, discontent, and generally unhappy people.



On the contrary, your failed attempts at proselytizing has reduced your posts to little more than juvenile name-calling. It&#8217;s really rather stereotypical of fundamentalists to react with pith and vinegar to those who challenge their specious opinions regarding their claims to gods and supernaturalism.





> The second example is actually a friend of the family, but let me predict, you will accuse me of lying, because you already have. You see, everything has to be a lie, or fallacy, or subjective, or delusional, so that you can maintain your closed mind. It's what you do!


Your anecdotal claims are unverifiable. What is interesting is that you hope to gloss over the fact that cancers do, in fact, have a rare spontaneous remission rate. But, that aside, how convenient that you have such a story to share. How lucky for your &#8220;friend of the family&#8221; that the gods have &#8220;miraculously&#8221; cured his cancer. Too bad that the other 100,000 people per year who die of cancer aren&#8217;t so blessed by the gods. Screw them. They deserve to die.
Here again, you&#8217;re infuriated that others question and challenge your claims to the supernatural.  And, how convenient that anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept your specious claims is necessarily worthy only of derision. I understand entirely this perspective of the religious fundamentalist and of course I don't think people would by definition behave worse if there was not a belief in gods.

Look, the fact is, people,  A) Behave pretty good most of the time regardless of their religious beliefs, and B) when they behave badly, they can't do much worse than they have as theists anyway. I disagree on how difficult it is to accept gods on faith. From my perspective, people generally do it, and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them. 





> Why are you talking about god like god is a person?


Because religious folks typically slather their gods with human attributes.





> Who said miracles were ancient? They happen daily, all over the planet, and this has happened since ancient times.


Identify for us a single, verifiable account of a &#8220;miracle&#8221;. I am alternately amused and horrified by the attempts of religious fundamentalists to claim &#8220;miracles&#8221;. So, When is the last time a &#8220;miracle&#8221; occurred? Identify for us a verifiable account of something outside of the natural, rational world that we can define as &#8220;miraculous&#8221;. This is not a question regarding your personal beliefs or desires -- it's about a standard of demonstration and supporting corroboration that establishing something true as opposed to it being mere assertion.

Why would the gods not simply be clear about &#8220;miracles&#8221; and not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers gods who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.





> Why does god now become a plural and belong to me? And how many more miracles would god have to perform for you to stop rejecting them and start believing? Maybe god should zap you with a lightning bolt, so you can find a clue?


What a silly comment. I think it is very obvious that fundamentalists  allow themselves to be dragged back to medieval thinking, whether that be due to embracing of fear and superstition or some inherent dynamic connected with a conscious desire of supernaturalists (a lot of the former, a little of the latter I think). That people have a explicit _want_ to live under an abiding fear of angry gods is astonishing perhaps, but no more or less than that of modern humans still embracing miracles for which there are natural explanations. There's this dynamic of self-deception that goes hand in hand with most of the ancient religious beliefs vs. modern reality, and for the most part such deceptions are harmless.





> Well, you have proven, even if this scenario happened, you could find a way to explain it away and continue rejecting god. It would demonstrate nothing to you, and you would claim... meh, happens all the time!
> 
> And let's also be clear about this, humans have never had to rationalize spiritual belief, we are intrinsically tied to it. It's actually irrational to hold the belief you claim, as a Nihilist.


I&#8217;m under no obligation to accept your claims to invented scenarios of supernatural events and appeals to fear and superstition.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.





> Again, miracles could be happening every second, people could be re-attaching limbs left and right, and it would not matter to you. As we clearly see, you will find a reason to disbelieve, regardless of the evidence. It's what you do!


If people actually were re-attaching their severed limbs left and right, it actually would matter to me. But they&#8217;re not&#8230; unless of course you can identify that people _actually are_ re-attaching their severed limbs.

Identify for us a single occurrence.

Thanks.





> No, you've already established you don't believe in god, and will come up with whatever skepticism is needed to continue disbelief. It would literally make no difference if god manifested in physical form and came to your house personally to say... look, toots, I am REAL, I do exist! You would still reject god. Your mind is closed to the possibility of god, and you'll find every possible excuse to continue disbelief.


Correct. I don&#8217;t believe in any past or current configurations of gods. And yes, I&#8217;m as skeptical regarding _your_ claims to gods and &#8220;miracles&#8221; for good and valid reasons: you offer nothing but anecdotal claims for your opinions.

Science supports my claims to naturalism. Supernaturalists / theists generally have a difficult time being honest and admitting that science _can't_ support supernaturalism. But we&#8217;re to believe your specious claims simply because you base your conclusions upon an ancient text that has no external corroboration and goes directly against the evidence that does exist?

I do detect a lot of desperation in your posts and in the history of religious thought, which is why you have a lot of instances where religious figures have burned the heretical scientists at the stake. One thing religious views cannot stand is evidence that dismantles their "divine revelation". Gods don't make mistakes. They just sort of... purposely obscure.

I don't think you see how that immediately invalidates any possible authoritative characteristic of your datum. If your position is that people really are, suddenly re-attach their severed limbs, you've got a world where any claim is interchangeable with any other claim. And if you argue from such a level of interchangeability (which you do), then why not simply select that which fits in with the available evidence, which is naturalism? why purposely choose the one that fits the least and remains absent any possible demonstration at its core?





> I guarantee, you would NOT be convinced. You would simply point to the fact that such things happen all the time, and aren't miracles, but luck. And why are you again trying to introduce theological belief in place of spirituality? I don't even know what "salvation" means, nor do I give a shit if you ever receive it. I don't think god loves you, I don't even think god cares who you are. God is a spiritual force, why would a spiritual force have human attributes? Why would it "need" for you to do anything? Do the forces of nature require you to believe in them? Do tornadoes care if you think they are real?


I guarantee, your specious claims are dismissible as fantasy and conjecture.

Interesting comment regarding tornadoes, though. Isn&#8217;t it your gods who causes tornadoes? Yes, he establishes the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

Much as theists attach human attributes to their gods, I think it&#8217;s pointless to attempt to attach &#8220;intent&#8221; or human attributes to natural forces.

Nature requires no belief in the supernatural. In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic / supernatural one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise?  How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there?  How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate?  Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead&#8230; or people re-attach severed limbs? 





> Glad I have your permission, I feel so much better about things.


Thanks. I&#8217;m always available to pass on some reason and rationality to supernaturalists.
You still haven&#8217;t been able to define what &#8220;spirituality&#8221; is and why you feel a need shield your theism behind a burqa behind it. I have trust in science, medicine, the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my assertion logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do religionists assert?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napolean (to use the cliche)?


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

Thanks to Hollie, Huggy, and others for continuing to prove me correct on points #1 and #2 from my OP.

Well done!


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Thanks to Hollie, Huggy, and others for continuing to prove me correct on points #1 and #2 from my OP.
> 
> Well done!



Challenges to your specious opinions caused you to perform an Olympic sport quality swimming maneuver: the Backstroke!


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE. 

This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion. 

Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.


----------



## HUGGY (May 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3okb3kuts]Marvin Gaye - Lets get it on - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.
> 
> This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion.
> 
> Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.


You've said nothing theistic in this thread?

Have you forgotten that it was you who commented in the OP that you had offered "positive proof for god"?

Secondly, constantly accusing others as being those "who hates and loathes religion and religious people" as a defense mechanism for your otherwise failed positions promoting "spirituality" is poor cricket, laddie.


----------



## edthecynic (May 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


No, obviously, I said YOUR limits on nature are not real.


----------



## HUGGY (May 11, 2013)

OK...  I'll start..  Geesh!

Where doya wanna start?  Elements?  Elementals?  Third eyes?  Color differension of the Astral plane/planes?  To heavy?

How about a simple breathing technique that will place you at the first veil?  OK... OK...close your eyes and breath though your nose... (I know! hard to follow with your eyes closed..)  imagine the air you are breathing as a color.. start with an aqua blue.  a clearish aqua blue... follow the stream of blue mist into your nose ...up into your head and down your windpipe into your lungs and back out again.  Breath in long and slow to the bottom as far as you can and slowly back out again.. Repeat as many time as you can or until you see the veil.  

DON'T ENTER !!!!! 

Many that have gone out seeking knowledge have never come back with anything.  You can still find em at the local mental institutions staring out into space.


----------



## dblack (May 11, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> OK...  I'll start..  Geesh!
> 
> Where doya wanna start?  Elements?  Elementals?  Third eyes?  Color differension of the Astral plane/planes?  To heavy?
> 
> ...



Wouldn't it be nice though? If attaining wisdom and understanding were simply a matter of "getting spiritual"? If you could just sit around daydreaming (meditating, praying, wishing, etc...) rather than going through the laborious process of actual learning?

I have real respect for some "spiritual" practices and practitioners. But all too often the appeal to the spiritual is a con, aimed at gullible people looking for an easy way out.


----------



## HUGGY (May 11, 2013)

dblack said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > OK...  I'll start..  Geesh!
> ...



Or an easy way in?    For most people you may as well give em a tricycle and push em out into traffic at the Indy 500...


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.
> ...



Yes, but as I've explained, "god" is a metaphoric term I am using for universal spiritual power. Theology is religious manifestations which come from this spiritual power. I don't profess belief in theological interpretations of god. A spiritual higher power does exist, but it is just there, present in the universe, available to benefit those who can connect with it, and not of benefit to those who can't... kind of like, Cold Play.


----------



## newpolitics (May 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie, I have said NOTHING theistic in this entire thread. I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no religious or theistic belief. I believe in a spiritual realm because I am aware of it's existence, it requires NO faith from me. I can't speak for others, I can't argue theology, I can't defend what Christians claim, and I'm not going to try. You continue to insinuate I am "proselytizing" when that simply is a LIE.
> 
> This is just more profound evidence that you are a religious bigot, who hates and loathes religion and religious people. That is ALL this is for you, a war against the religious, and you HAVE TO make me into a religious zealot, so that you can satisfy your need to bash religion.
> 
> Now, I have tried to rationally and reasonably explain this to you, and you continue to ignore me. I even tried joining you in bashing on Christians, hoping that would make you feel better, but that didn't work either. You're just convinced I am one of those pesky Curshtins tryin to push my religion on you. At this point, I don't know what else I can do or say, if you are just going to start lying your ass off and baselessly accusing people of stuff, I can't expect to have reasonable dialogue with you anymore.



Apart from god's existence, you've said nothing theistic? I think you need to learn about logical contradictions. This is getting ridiculous.

This is like a guy eating a piece of chicken and saying, "Aside from this, I'm a vegetarian."


----------



## newpolitics (May 11, 2013)

Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?



We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.


----------



## Mertex (May 11, 2013)

Indeed he does!  And anyone who wants to find Him will.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?
> ...



What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I'm following logic, and I've shown where you are not. You demand and expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity, which is illogical. You claim humans suffer from 70k years of mass delusion, again.. illogical. You claim spiritual belief is to explain things that have been explained for hundreds of years, illogical. You defy the very principles of physical science you claim to believe in, again... ILLOGICAL! 

Every time you have dared to touch on the OP argument, you've proven to be an illogical twit, yet you are here calling me the illogical one. For the most part, you've steered away from debate on the subject, in favor of distracting and derailing the topic or personally attacking me with ridicule, or boasting about how you've somehow "won" the debate that you've not really participated in. At least, not with anything logical. 

Now, you are tenacious, I've got to give you that. You obviously have a high regard for your opinion, but unfortunately, your opinion doesn't defeat the argument.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I guess its hard to convince the deluded of their delusion, and so it is with you. Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want, but your attempt to convince anyone else with this pseudo-argument fails heroically. Please, don't talk about logic as if you've any idea of what it means.

Yes, humans are suffering from a "mass delusion" as a need to answer unanswerable questions. The reason people are still religious, although the number is decreasing, is because of the ability for people to put god into whatever gaps science hasn't yet answered. Also, it is evolved into us to look for the spiritual, as a sort of vestigial belief pattern, as well as there being tremendous social pressure to believe in god in religious communities, from friends and family. People  trust atheists the least of any demographic, a priori, which confirms it being an evolved trait that performed a cohesive function, but is now incongruent in our modern world, and will be phased out. No, Occams Razor doesn't say that god must exist. This is a perversion of Occam's Razor and logic in general. This isn't my opinion. This is logic, as well as the definition of Occam's Razor. What you are doing is the equivalent of adding two and two and getting five. Your premises simply don't add up. 

I have addresses the OP directly, only to be frustrated by your inability to grasp the logical, and your continual insistence that you are right simply because it makes sense to you.


----------



## G.T. (May 12, 2013)

(MY RESPONSES IN BOLD AND PARENTHESIS)





Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.**(not that it must be a fallacy, only that it's not proven. You're putting words in people's mouths as the start of a thesis. weak.)* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic*(no, the absence of proof leading to a lack of belief is completely logical. weak).* Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists(*not a single person does, this is an assertion with no backbone. weak. that is why the majority of believers in "god," i.e. Christians, require FAITH. FAITH is the ABSENCE OF PROOF, YET BELIEF. weak.*), that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem. *(no, a person arguing publicly to have proof of something then has the burden to back up their commentary. that's how debate works. no one has provided spiritual proof of a god, and before they even could they'd need to obviously define spiritual, define god. this is how logic works. weak.)*
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy(*energy is a physical property. "spirit" is an abstract, unproven entity*). So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with(*so is pretending a spiritual entity exists because people say so, with no proof whatsoever except them all saying so. that is devoid of logic, as well*). Does a thought exist(*actually, you can map the brain's function throughout a thought. theyre also in the process of being able to pull a visual memory out of the brain. catch up on your research, you're wrong here*)? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist(*you can see it, there is physical proof of its existence, and theyre in the middle of proving it definitively. look it up*)? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love? *(love is an emotion, it triggers a physical reaction. everyone knows that. dreams are what the brain goes through when it's defragging during sleep. inspiration is a thought process.)*
> 
> ...




The reason your thread lasts so long is because the persons arguing it suspend disbelief in how someone so simple minded could carry on for this many pages after being debunked so succinctly and thoroughly, and they hang onto hope that your crazy stupid brain would come around. It won't, you're an idiot. Your OP has more holes in it than - I don't know I cant even think of an analogy for that many holes.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"70,000 years" of a *state of mind* does* NOT* constitute ""Definitive Proof" for the existence of your "God".


> and you refuse to EVER acknowledge it. We can continue this thread for another 20 pages, and you will STILL not acknowledge it. My thread is NEVER going to change your mind, and *I fully understood this when I posted it*.


Your own posts contradict that allegation. 


> I have stated, at least a dozen time in the thread, that I am not religious, I have no religious beliefs, *I am pretty much an Atheist *


Another easily debunked canard of yours. *Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".* Whereas *YOU* are claiming that there is "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". This means that you are now* lying* about being an Atheist in order to hide your religious beliefs.  


> when it comes to organized religion, yet here you are again, trying to accuse me of forcing my religious beliefs on others. Honestly, *how can you have a reasonable debate with people who are this dishonest*?



Ironic!  


> What you and others continue to prove, by insinuating religion, is that you are angry at religion and religious people. You are so spitting mad at them, that any time someone even dares to mention "spirituality"* you emotively go into attack mode*.



Ironic!  


> You've proven this over and over in the thread. It's sad that *you are letting your anger and rage for religion*, get in the way of understanding human spirituality.



Ironic!  

Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> I guess its hard to convince the deluded of their delusion, and so it is with you.



It's hard to convince me the most intelligent species of all has suffered from mass delusion for 70k years, when this hasn't happened with any other species or living thing, even the simplest life forms aren't duped into meaningless behavior.  



> The reason people are still religious, although the number is decreasing, is because of the ability for people to put god into whatever gaps science hasn't yet answered.



The number of spiritual people is not declining, it remains about 95%. You also need to give me some examples of these things that are so unexplained by science that man has to turn to a "delusion" to explain them. 



> Also, it is evolved into us to look for the spiritual, as a sort of vestigial belief pattern, as well as there being tremendous social pressure to believe in god in religious communities, from friends and family. People  trust atheists the least of any demographic, a priori, which confirms it being an evolved trait that performed a cohesive function, but is now incongruent in our modern world, and will be phased out.



These are unfounded opinions, you've offered not a thing to support them. You also haven't explained WHY people need a vestigial belief system. It certainly wasn't social pressure when millions and millions of spiritual people were killed for their beliefs or for refusing to abandon them. In fact, every attempt in world history, to stamp out spiritual belief, has failed... so the diametric opposite of what you claim, is the truth. IN SPITE of social pressure, people remained devoutly spiritual. 



> No, Occams Razor doesn't say that god must exist.



I have never claimed it did. Time and time again, you continue to completely misinterpret what is said. Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem, or you are mentally retarded. Occams doesn't proclaim things fact. It merely states, the simplest explanations are most logical, and evaluations should start there, until you have something with greater explanatory power, which you have failed to present in this case. 



> I have addresses the OP directly, only to be frustrated by your inability to grasp the logical, and your continual insistence that you are right simply because it makes sense to you.



No, you have repeatedly misquoted and misinterpreted things I have said. You've addressed the OP with your unfounded opinion and ridicule. You've tried to derail the topic, change the subject and trap me into contradictions. So far, nothing has worked.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

> Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".



Incorrect. They don't believe in "theistic" concepts of god. Many Atheists do accept the possibility of spiritual nature. Only 5% of the population identify as Nihilist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Explain ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to _consciously and deliberately_ blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming &#8220;he&#8221; is beyond our power to understand. 

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, &#8220;Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



*Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.*

You rejected my argument on the basis that a spiritual entity doesn't provide physical proof. The fallaciousness is you insisting on illogical evidence that never can exist. If spiritual entities provided physical proof, they would be physical entities, defined by the existence of physical proof. In order to examine the possibility of a spiritual god, you have to examine spiritual evidence, not physical. But you reject spiritual evidence as nonsense, so god can never be proven to you, nor are you capable of examining the possibility. 

Physical science and the scientific method, NEVER draw conclusions. It is all probability and prediction, based on observation and testability. Nothing is definitive with science, it always leaves the door of possibility open. Understanding this, what if you were attempting to explain something science is relatively certain about, to someone who totally rejects science? Every theory you present, is met with... "god didn't say it, so it must not be true!" Repeatedly, you show the physical evidence, the scientific data and formulas, the details of scientific examination, and it is consistently rejected by someone who refuses to accept physical science, and insists that "god did it!" Is there ANY way to get through to such a person? Will you EVER convince them, if they won't accept physical science? 

The same exact problem applies to you in this debate. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence and cling to physical science. Your mind is closed to any other possibility. I presented an argument which contains both spiritual and physical evidence, but you reject the spiritual evidence, and offer casual excuses to explain away the physical evidence. If physical science were definitive and could definitively prove spiritual entities do not exist, I would accept your argument, but that's not the case.


----------



## Bezukhov (May 12, 2013)

Actually Boss, there *was* a god. But that was a long time ago. Me and my boys took care of it We wrote a song to commemorate the event:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTf5GdlJONM]Steely Dan 2003-Godwhacker - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.



You've not debunked anything with reason or logic. You've attempted to apply an illogical criteria by demanding physical proof of something that is not physical in nature. This is the only "reason" you have presented for rejecting the possibility. Even the principles of the scientific method are ignored by you. Science has not drawn the conclusion that a spiritual realm doesn't or can't exist, or for that matter, can't ever be proven by physical evidence. Science itself, remains open to the possibility of things we don't yet know, but you reject any possibility of spirituality. You are defying your own first-principles of science in doing so, and it doesn't even seem to dawn on you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".
> 
> 
> 
> *Incorrect. They don't believe in "theistic" concepts of god.*



Whom should we believe regarding the definition of an Atheist? *Your self serving lies* or *Merriam-Webster*?



> Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Definition of *ATHEIST*
> 
> ...



Merriam-Webster has far more *credibility* than your pathetic lies when it comes to the indisputable facts.



> *Many Atheists do accept the possibility of spiritual nature*. Only 5% of the population identify as Nihilist.



Completely irrelevant. Spirituality is a *STATE OF MIND* and does *NOT* remotely resemble "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".
> ...



A "deity" is a theistic concept of god. 

Show me one place in this entire thread, where I have claimed god was a "deity" and I will accept your accusation and apologize publicly. If you can't, I will expect a public apology from you, for repeatedly making this false accusation. 

You see, this is why you and others are so determined to lock me into a definition of god. You can then attack whatever incarnation I present, thus refuting my argument. The fact that I will not allow this, has you frustrated to the point of outright lying.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

"In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. *The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. * Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...

"...* At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. * Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, *only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available.*"

"...Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification."

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports:


"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public  and a third of adults under 30  are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).[9]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



More semantic nonsense.



> Deity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> *Definition of DEITY*
> 
> ...





> *Show me one place in this entire thread, where I have claimed god was a "deity" *and I will accept your accusation and apologize publicly. If you can't, I will expect a public apology from you, for repeatedly making this false accusation.



Pathetic strawman deflection! 


> You see, this is why you and others are so determined to *lock me into a definition of god*. You can then attack whatever incarnation I present, thus refuting my argument. The fact that I will not allow this, has you frustrated to the point of outright lying.



Merriam-Webster is the one you are arguing with. That is who you should be providing a groveling apology to since you obviously lack the basic education necessary to understand the meaning of the terms that you are so loosely flinging around in this thread.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.
> ...



What you are presenting as evidence isn't evidence. There is no such thing as "spiritual evidence." There is simply "evidence." You have invented a category that contains the conclusion. This is begging the question. It is a logical fallacy, therefore, your argument fails. You have not even attempted to counter this refutation, because you cant, since its true. You don't understand logic, so you will ignore this as unimportant, even though it is crucial. This is the nature of your delusion: to ignore the crucial.

What we would really need from you is supernatural causation. You have failed to provide this.


----------



## HUGGY (May 12, 2013)

Bezukhov said:


> Actually Boss, there *was* a god. But that was a long time ago. Me and my boys took care of it We wrote a song to commemorate the event:
> 
> Steely Dan 2003-Godwhacker - YouTube



Ther ought to be a law that a great old group from the seventies should be prohibited from writing and performing any new music if it takes away from thier main body of work which in the same law should be considered a national treasure.  

True story.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Let me make it real simple for you: you are trying to prove the spiritual. You can't use the spiritual to prove the spiritual, when the spiritual hasn't been shown to exist at all. This is circular. It is called begging the question. This is a logical fallacy. What this means is that you fail at reaching your conclusion. Because your evidence already has the quality of being spiritual, you've started out with an assumption that contains your conclusion. Begging the question.... Basic logical fallacy, at the heart of your pseudo-argument.

For whatever reason, you have failed to refute this. You haven't even tried. Then you hypocritically accuse me of avoiding the OP. Stop being an ass, grow up, and start addressing the myriad refutations throughout this thread of your OP, instead of accusing everyone of avoiding your "spiritual evidence," which is your conclusion in disguise.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> "In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. *The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. * Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...
> 
> "...* At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. * Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, *only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available.*"
> 
> ...



However, we have already determined that not all "atheists" reject the possibility of a "spiritual" existence. I am a prime example of someone who falls in this category, and I'll bet that when it comes right down to it, if people are completely honest, this is true with virtually everyone in this thread. 

Answer me this; Are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one?  *Now.... don't IGNORE the question, answer it honestly.* 

IF you believe it possible another realm could exist, you are like most human beings. IF you do not believe it is possible, you are among the 5% who profess a belief in nothing, a Nihilist. The problem with believing it is _*impossible*_ that spiritual nature exists, is you are actually practicing a FAITH-BASED BELIEF, and not practicing scientific evaluation. However... the "problem" with accepting the possibility of spiritual existence, means you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence, which is overwhelming.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Where in the heck do you go to school ? since when is human behavior not evidence ? The only fallacy at work here is your ability to reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



It's not irrelevant You just have no answer for it nor do you like it that my argument trumps your your belief system.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

Why don't you kids go honor your mother and Give Thanks to GOD your mother did not believe in Abortion!


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have never offered a coherent explanation for "it". You have never even offered evidence for "it". So yes, it is irrelevant.


----------



## numan (May 12, 2013)

boss said:


> answer me this; are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one?  *now.... Don't ignore the question, answer it honestly.*


*mathematics*
.


----------



## numan (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> It's hard to convince me the most intelligent species of all has suffered from mass delusion for 70k years....


Most of the human beings who have ever lived believed that the Sun went around the Earth.
.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are still insisting that there is evidence for something you claim exists, _ie:_: spiritual evidence, yet you cannot coherently define what that is. You cannot provide evidence for it. So yes, you are describing nothing.

At the core of any debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from that evidence. I have no means or methods to evaluate the non-objective claims of something you call "spirituality but remain unable to define, present no evidence for, and cannot provide demonstration for. I have no choice but to recognize that _evidence_ is the final arbiter of what we define as facts.  

You have obviously opted for something connected with Theism, mysticism or some derivative to account for what you call spirituality, yet Im not even clear as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so. As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or supernatural view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace. You seem to be attempting to discredit science by asserting that there are extant supernatural forces. Yet, you offer no evidence to support that supernaturalism.  

The "supernatural" argument is not a valid one. What people expect vs. what they would prefer to believe means little, if anything, in science. If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science. I, for one, find nothing about naturalistic evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. No one is under any obligation to explain why supernaturalism is not the most reasonable explanation for existence. It is the supernaturalism advocates who must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature _must_ have been subject to supernaturalism. To date, they have not done so and in fact, appeal instead to a wide array of nonsensical and unproven supernatural assertions. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to emotion and fear.

At a fundamental level, you presume your argument with the assertion that there is something called spirituality which stands authoritative. You engage your beliefs by claiming the only guidelines for supporting your are those you assert as a recipient of your own spirituality. We can either accept or disregard those assertions, but you are adamant: They are real, they are true, and no amount of data to the contrary will convince you otherwise.

You proceed by having an open-ended standard, i.e., "I assert it to be true, hence it is true". Thats fine. Just dont presume that others are going to be convinced of any of it.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 12, 2013)

numan said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> > answer me this; are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one?  *now.... Don't ignore the question, answer it honestly.*
> ...




the Garden is the Physical Presence and proof of Gods existence .... for which mathematics does not apply - 

in 750 million years there has not been a Leaf or a blade of Grass similar to another and never will be.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > "In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. *The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. * Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...
> ...



Why do you preposterously *ASSUME* that if another realm exists that it *MUST* be "spiritual" in nature? Other realms could just as easily be physical but comprised entirely of dark matter and dark energy. Once again your innate religiosity exposes the absurdity of your erroneous presumptions.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 12, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > boss said:
> ...



More arrant nonsense. They are ALL "similar to another". What you are trying to claim is that they are not "identical". There again you are wrong because some species of plants reproduce by cloning themselves which means that they have identical DNA. FYI grasses only began evolving around 55 million years ago.


----------



## numan (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority....


One of the many attractive features of Chinese culture is that, for centuries, a large percentage of the Chinese population has regarded religion as a branch of fantastic humor.

One need only read the centuries-old Chinese novel *Journey to the West* to see this abundantly. This allegorical exposition of Buddhist religion and philosophy, and the slap-stick adventures of the Monkey-King Wu-Kong  ("Enlightened Emptiness") and the Venerable Monk Tripitaka, even today, are comedic favorites in Chinese movies and childrens' shows.
.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 12, 2013)

numan said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority....
> ...




 Monkey-King Wu-Kong  ("Enlightened Emptiness") must finally be the "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists" that the OP has been searching for all this time.


----------



## S.J. (May 12, 2013)

We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air.  That's logic.  
One-dimensional thinkers (like the ones on this thread) don't consider the possibility that a higher power could exist because they can't apply familiar scientific principals to verify it.  Their faith in science is as misplaced as any religions they mock.  
Science deals strictly with the physical world and that's all people like NP can handle, even though we know non-physical forces (like hate, fear, love) drive our physical world.  They are close-minded people, which is ironic when you consider that scientific thinking is supposed to be open to all possibilities.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have provided evidence for it, 70,000 years of human civilization accompanied by human spirituality, an attribute that distinguishes our species from all other living things. 



> At the core of any debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from that evidence.



This is true, so why do you continue to interpret physical evidence un-objectively? Biased by the "belief" that spirituality *does not* exist? Physical evidence alone,  doesn't show spirituality exists or doesn't exist, it is inconclusive. To continue to demand some kind of physical evidence for a spiritual entity, is franky, illogical. Objectively, we have to examine the possibility that human spiritual connection, which has existed as long as we have, which is profound and distinct in our species, which defines and distinguishes our species over all other living things... MIGHT have something to do with what makes us so much different from all other living things. 



> I have no means or methods to evaluate the non-objective claims of something you call "spirituality but remain unable to define, present no evidence for, and cannot provide demonstration for. I have no choice but to recognize that _evidence_ is the final arbiter of what we define as facts.



I established in the first two paragraphs of the OP that this is the problem with answering this question. You do not recognize spiritual evidence, and you find convenient excuses for the physical evidence. God can never be proven to you, I have state this in my argument, and you have again confirmed it to be true. I totally understand, you will ONLY accept physical evidence, and ONLY believe in physical existence. It's impossible to ever prove god to you. In order to prove god, the spiritual nature of god is destroyed, and god becomes a physical entity, not a spiritual one. This is an illogical and impossible criteria to meet. Which is convenient for you, since you reject spirituality. 



> You have obviously opted for something connected with Theism, mysticism or some derivative to account for what you call spirituality, yet Im not even clear as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so.



No, I keep having "theism" thrown in my face, because your reasoning for rejecting spirituality centers around your bigoted hatred for religion. This is self-evident by the way you continue to go back to the religion well, to try and make this a theological argument. There is also no "mysticism" involved in my argument or beliefs. This is a buzz word you are using to ridicule my position and portray it as invalid. 



> As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or supernatural view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace.



Two point to consider here; a) If science has no say, why are you arguing from the perspective that it does or should, or that it's logical to expect it? b) When did science conclude that spirituality cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or have a physical trace? 



> You seem to be attempting to discredit science by asserting that there are extant supernatural forces. Yet, you offer no evidence to support that supernaturalism.



70,000 years of human civilization intrinsically tied to some kind of spiritual connection. A noted psychiatrist one said: _If God didn't exist, man would have to invent it._  His point was, that the human psyche is irrefutably tied to a spiritual connection... it's WHO WE ARE!



> The "supernatural" argument is not a valid one.



Only because your mind has rendered it invalid. 



> What people expect vs. what they would prefer to believe means little, if anything, in science.



Then why do you keep clinging to what you would prefer to believe? Why do you keep relying on science to answer questions you admit that science cannot answer? 



> If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science.



I've not rejected science, but science hasn't proven what you seem to think it has.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You are absolutely correct, there could be a realm which is not spiritual OR physical. I never meant to imply (because I didn't state) that another realm MUST be spiritual. In context of the current conversation, I presumed we were defining "spiritual" to be that which is not "physical," but I certainly want to clarify this, so that everyone understands.

So, are you now saying that you believe it is possible another realm does exist, which we can't comprehend from our physical realm? Just want to make sure you've answered my question.


----------



## numan (May 12, 2013)

S.J. said:


> We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air.  That's logic.


It's not logic if you assume that thoughts are "things" in the same way that air molecules are "things".
.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 12, 2013)

numan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air.  That's logic.
> ...




Why?

Do you think there's no God because you can't hit her with a hammer.  Is that it?

Did molecules exist prior to their discovery?

The dismissal of the existence of God because you can find no physical proof is illogical.


----------



## numan (May 12, 2013)

'
Well, I tried to make it as simple as possible, Cracker, but you still missed the point !!  "Apples and rainbows", remember?

In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :

*"Every manifold in some way participates the One."*

Without getting into the technical meaning of "participates", the argument can be put into modern terminology by saying that without some form of unity in the manifold, the manifold would not be a manifold, but would disintegrate into a _Borel Set_ -- which John Wheeler picturesquely described as "a bucket of dust." That is, the supposed manifold would disintegrate into unendingly infinitesimal fragments. It is a very clever _reductio ad absurdum_, particularly for the time period of Proclus, about 450 A.D. If you can come up with a really good argument demolishing Proclus, I will admit that you are a better sceptic than I, but not before. It may not be the last word in philosophy, but if anything exists, then it is true.

It's about the closest to a firm initial axiom that I have come across.

The Neo-Platonists: great stuff. But you won't get anywhere with them if you don't understand their vocabulary.
.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



From the standpoint of logic?


----------



## Aristotle (May 12, 2013)

Did anyone explain who God is yet?


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

numan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We can't SEE thoughts, emotions, reason, but we know they are there because we see the results they produce, much like air.  That's logic.
> ...



It's also not logic if you assume "spirituality" is something physical, or physically proven. 

It's funny that your avatar reminds me of a discussion I heard once from Hawking, about exploring the universe, and possibility of other-worldly entities. He brilliantly pointed out the nature of how the human body works to destroy things harmful to the body, and said that it might not be in mankind's interests to be signaling out into space, our presence in the universe. His point being, life process may be universal, the things that relate to humans and other living things, may also be relative to the universe as a whole. By sending signals into space in an attempt to make contact, we might inadvertently be triggering a reaction from the universe to attack, the same way the human body would attack a virus, because this is what we essentially represent to the universe. 

Yep... that is deep, for sure. Perhaps a little off the topic, but perhaps not?


----------



## HUGGY (May 12, 2013)

Bezukhov said:


> Actually Boss, there *was* a god. But that was a long time ago. Me and my boys took care of it We wrote a song to commemorate the event:
> 
> Steely Dan 2003-Godwhacker - YouTube



Did you help write "for the boys" when you were 12?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgYuLsudaJQ]Steely Dan ?Do It Again? (sound from original studio version) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Crackerjaxon (May 12, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, I tried to make it as simple as possible, Cracker, but you still missed the point !!  "Apples and rainbows", remember?
> 
> In my long and varied history of doubting, there is only one proposition which has defeated my ability to doubt: it is the first proposition of Proclus' Elements of Theology :
> ...




...and you won't get anywhere with me assuming that snotty, superior tone.  It is good, though, that you have brains enough to grasp that facet of neo-Platonism.  You might want to take a look at hexagrams 1, 2, 3 of the I Ching and read a little Lao Tsu, also John 1:1.

You're approaching the tao (from a Christian perspective --  logos) and starting to make some sense.  It's tough to come to a God realization using logic alone, that's why the zen koans are valuable.

The natualist perspective is like wearing blinders.  When Keats wrote "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"--that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know," he was talking about shattering the subject/object perspective.

Good luck.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Evidence of WHAT???


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Did anyone explain who God is yet?



YAHWEH , YESHUA and JESUS work for me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You're not serious.


----------



## Aristotle (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone explain who God is yet?
> ...



So this thread is about the Biblical god?

Ok. Is there evidence Jesus ascended to heaven?


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I believe I am.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



This thread is not about anything, because god has not been defined.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Did anyone explain who God is yet?



No.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone explain who God is yet?
> ...



You could have written "Jesus", lowercase, once, and that would have sufficed.


----------



## t1bbst3r (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Did anyone explain who God is yet?



There is no God known to science (maybe planets), as soon as people understand this the better. If you hold a belief that 'this' is what god is you will only end up being proven wrong. Does that mean there isn't a God, because your'e assumptions were wrong? If you study geometry, it can argue intelligent design, so can biology to some extent. We all 'feel' things on occasion, supernatural situations that freak us out, because they shouldn't be happening. It's more than paranoia, & is like billion-1 occurances happening by 'this' doing 'that' in the way it is noticed if that makes sense. 

Some people want free will & others want to influence people.

Life was created by something & we all have a nature we should be following. People seem to do just the opposite of this, tipping the balance, towards those that have been  actually lead astray from their true nature. Possesed by their materialistic, or purely self indulgant, programmed, lustful, fuckhead desires. 

Just think, if you were some fuck-head saved from drowning in an ocean, think of the gratitude you would feel for the 'God send', or good will another person showed. And think how long would it take before external factors in your daily life drags you back to whoever you were before your'e life was ever in danger? 2 weeks? I mean, T'WhAT'S ,a situation like this good for if not to show you that your life isn't right upon your savior if the fear of God is put within in you.   

Thats how I see the world anyway & is as far as I can get, so will have to be content to leave it at that.

Cheers!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



Wrong the thread is not about Jesus. Why do I need evidence Jesus ascended to Heaven ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



If human behavior is considered evidence in this case why would it not be evidence concerning man has always been spiritual in our beliefs ?

Researcher finds evidence of how human behavior can influence emergence of infectious disease


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



God is a supreme spirit and the reason everything we see exists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



Some people are picky so I included the Hebrew names.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Human behavior can not be considered as evidence of anything spiritual, since this amounts to an argument from popularity. Humans have been wrong about a great many things until the advent of modern science.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



That it?


----------



## t1bbst3r (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



agreed.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that is not it.


----------



## numan (May 12, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I tried to make it as simple as possible, Cracker, but you still missed the point !!  "Apples and rainbows", remember?
> ...


Well, you are not very spiritually advanced if you cannot see through my snotty, superior tone to the Golden Seeds of Wisdom protected within.

I am so egoless that I find your tone of superiority merely faintly amusing.

I am quite familiar with the work of Laozi and can read it in its original classical Chinese. Thereby I am familiar with a number of subtleties which appear in no English translation.

For example, A knowledge of the grammar and the Ma Wang Dui excavations reveal quite clearly that the first line of the  Laozi should be translated :

*"As for the Path, (you) can travel it, but it is not an unvarying path."*

The passive "can be path-ed" which is the usual (and annoying)  translation in English is quite ungrammatical. The character "ko" in front of "dao" functions exactly like the suffix "-able" in English : "as for the path, it is path-able."

Two times a word (miao) usually translated as "mystery" becomes more significant if you realize that it is etymologically related to the word meaning "embryo". In the Chinese character itself you can the woman radical conjoined with a phonetic meaning a small, tiny fragment in her belly.

The Daoist "mystery" is not a static viewpoint, but a subtle germen developing in the womb of the Mother. That is the point of the rhyme (which still exists in modern Chinese) of being desireless to see its "miao" (embryo), and desire revealing its "qiao" (rind, outside). The contrast is between seed--fruit-peel, embryo--pregnant belly. 
.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > "In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. *The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. * Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...
> ...



You make so little sense. It's hard to have a debate with you. Nihilism is not a belief in nothing. It is a belief that life lacks any objective meaning, and there are many different kinds of nihilism: metaphysical, mereological, moral... This is nothing to do with atheism, so I'm not sure how you are connecting this to gnostic atheism, which you just insinuated. You seem to think that one who believes definitively that no god exists is a nihilist. This is completely untrue. Nor is it a faith-based position to deny belief when there is no evidence for something. That is rational and logical. 

As to your question, anything is possible. We could be in matrix right now, which is actually highly probable according to some. It is possible that a god exists. It is possible that a spiritual realm exists. But, possibility is not what we are discussing. We are discussing what is very probably true.


----------



## Aristotle (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You define God by calling God a name


----------



## Aristotle (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You define God by calling God a name, or saying God is.....


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



 I'm not the one claiming a god exists.


----------



## MaryL (May 12, 2013)

Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isnt any reason to debate it either. Egotism  maybe.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isnt any reason to debate it either. Egotism  maybe.



Well, according to theists, there is proof, and as long as these people are running for president with access to the nuclear codes, I'm going to debate it.


----------



## Aristotle (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Then what was the basis of this thread I may have missed it?

Edit: Newpolitics my fault I made a mistake and thought you were the author of this thread.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



No worries. Check out the OP. In it is contained a "definitive proof for god," without defining god.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isnt any reason to debate it either. Egotism  maybe.
> ...



Well, I am not a theist, and I believe a spiritual realm exists and there is proof for it, which is why I presented the OP argument, which you cannot refute. You and MaryL refuse to acknowledge spiritual evidence, which is required in order to establish proof of any spiritual entity, the same as physical evidence is used to confirm existence of physical things.

Oh.... and I hate to inform you, but every man who has ever held the office of President, professed to believe in the spiritual realm and God, and swore an oath on the Holy Bible.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



God has been defined several times for you in this thread. Stop lying.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



Why don't you read the thread OP, then you will know what the thread is about? 

IN FACT: To all new people who are popping into the thread at post 800, please begin by reading the first post. You can pretty much skip the rest, because most of them are newpolitics and others, trying to derail the topic, change the subject, and throw religion under the bus. The argument presented in the OP has not been refuted, in fact, the first two points have been confirmed by many in this thread.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist. 

Again, you beg the question using spiritual evidence. No dice. You are trying to prove the spiritual. You cant start there. Basic stuff.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...



Oh it's back to this now? Just a few posts ago you declared you don't need to define god. We're on the second cycle of you doubling back on this.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I don't need to prove spirituality exists, it has existed for 70,000 years, we have evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Nope, not doubling back on anything. You continue to want me to define god in theological terms so you can attack the theological concept. I refused to do that, and you became petulant. I believe it was on page 1 or 2, where I sufficiently defined "god" to emily, as the metaphoric representation of the spiritual entity humans have always been connected to. You don't like my definition because it is too broad for you to attack, but it is all the definition needed to evaluate existence, the evidence of which, is overwhelming. 

It's also all the definition you're going to get from me, because I didn't claim to be able to specifically define god. Now you can keep on lying to people, like you've basically done the entire thread, and claim I haven't met your demand, but it has been presented.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



First of all, Neanderthals had spiritual belief, and this trend didn't start 70,000 years ago in humans. More like 200,000 years, since we've been human. So, we are not the only species to have this behavioral trait. 

Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

> Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.



I think you are confusing Christianity with Islam. 

I also think, since all US presidents have been spiritual, we're safe with them. What I would fear, would be a closed minded Atheist bigot, such as yourself. Someone who refuses to accept logical evidence, demands illogical evidence, and perpetually lies and distorts to get what he wants. But then, we've lived through Obama, so maybe we could survive that? My guess is, you'd arrogantly chortle out an executive order to ban religion and religious thought, as soon as you took office.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



No, I am sorry, there is no evidence Neanderthals ever practiced any kind of spiritual belief. 



> Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?



I'm using 70k years, because that is the oldest human civilization we've unearthed. Of course, archeologists do differ in opinion on this, some say 80k, some say 60k.. there is an ongoing debate. Nevertheless, from the earliest civilization of man, spirituality has been present. 

Belief doesn't mean something is actually true. I never argued this. Profoundly intrinsic and inherent behavior in a species for all of it's existence, does mean something.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, you have doubled back, twice now. First you defiantly proclaim that you don't have to define god, and tried to use the insides of black holes as an analogy. Remember that? Then you do a 180 and concede this half-assed definition that doesn't equate to anything having to do with god, but a spiritual realm, and yet title this thread as "definitive proof for god" and even proclaim this at the end of your OP. Yet again, without definition. All youve actually proven, is that humans have an inclination to believe in something spiritual. This is already known. It doesn't mean a sport world actually exists. 

Your definition needs to be upfront, and in the beginning. You've been doing this dance around defining god the entire thread. Then you absurdly accuse people of wanting to box you into a theological notion of god. The truth is, you like the attention, and know that the second you define god this thread will die immediately, because this debate is as old as history, and all arguments for god have been refuted.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, behavior is significant. That doesn't mean that the belief tied to that behavior is true.


----------



## newpolitics (May 12, 2013)

Oh, and yes there is evidence that Neanderthals practiced spirituality. 

"So evidence suggests that perhaps the Neanderthals had some sort of preoccupation with death. They were self-conscious beings and this itself can bring about an awareness of death and the meaning and implications of death. And this awareness of death embodies our ideas, as it probably did theirs, on God, religion and an afterlife. They, like so many religions of today saw death as not the end, but merely the beginning of a new cycle of existence.

Neanderthals


So were the Neanderthals the first hominoids to be aware of religion? Evidence does suggest so. What do we know about them? We know they had a culture, planning abilities, a ritualistic type of life. They had similar abilities that we have today, but probably in a more basic form. We know they were unselfish in their concerns for their young, their sick and their elders and were altruistic in nature. There is evidence that many lived longer than their individual life expectancy, perhaps cut short due to illness or injury, suggesting that the social unit looked after the sick and the infirmed. However their altruism did appear to be localised within small groups rather than universal altruism within their species (Is this why they became extinct?)."

http://www.garvandwane.com/religion/early_religion.html


----------



## Aristotle (May 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



No, you keep distorting my words, I defiantly proclaimed we do not have to define things to prove they exist... see Einstein. You goofed around like an obtuse asshole for about a page, chortling at the notion that I was trying to prove something without defining it, so I presented a definition for clarification. Since then, you have continued to lie and claim I haven't defined god. I've popped you in the nose twice about it, but you persist on "doubling back" for yet another nose pop. I'm happy to oblige! 

I've not danced around anything, I have put up with you lying and distorting almost everything you've claimed I said. You are the most utterly dishonest person I believe I have ever conversed with on a forum. And that is saying something, I assure you.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I feel the same way about you. It's all subjective, just like your evidence for god. 

Yes, you do need to define things to prove they exist. That is the whole point. You write "see Einstein." What does THAT MEAN? You need to explain yourself rather than just name drop.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss I re-read your post and I have to say as a philosophy guy myself, you present a very weak argumen.
> 
> 
> Flaw #1
> ...



What you are saying is, spirituality doesn't exist, it's just ingrained into society as a matter of psychological conditioning. This makes absolutely NO logical sense. You've not pointed out a flaw, you've reaffirmed that man could not have progressed without spirituality, which was ingrained into society and psychologically conditioned. Regardless of the perspective of a given culture, the commonality is spiritual belief. This attribute has been present in humans since humans first existed, and remains our most defining characteristic as a species. 



> Flaw #2
> 
> Your statement about spirituality was not defined. I mean, what does it mean to be spiritual?



It means different things to different people, but basically, it is the belief in some supernatural power beyond our own physical realm of existence or comprehension. Our imaginations have forged this profound connection we can't deny, into various "religions" which attempt to define god in theological parameters. I am not here to argue theology, only the existence of spirituality and a spiritual power greater than self. 



> Flaw #3
> What is God?



Answered already. In this particular argument, "god" is a metaphoric representation of what humans have spiritually acknowledged for all their existence. It does not have to be defined specifically, I never claimed I could prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god. Also, if you read the OP, it states this very clearly in the first two paragraphs, that we have to clearly define the words used in the question, and what they mean. 



> Flaw# 4
> Your thread posits a claim with little definition on what spirituality is or what God is



Again, things do not have to be specifically defined to determine existence. I see a person in the courtyard... it is confirmed this person exists without me determining if it's a man or woman, what religion they are, what color eyes and hair they have, etc. Please tell me this isn't over your head? 



> Flaw # 5
> You said you cannot measure a metaphysical deity through physical measurement thus you need to measure spiritual reality through spiritual measurement. This is a clear strawman.
> 
> For one to get to this statement the burden is on you to define what spirituality is. In addition, once that has been achieved, then you must define how spirituality is measured.
> ...



Spirituality is non physical. Thoughts, dreams and love, are byproducts of something that is physical, and there is physical evidence to show they happen. The same is true with spirituality, but it doesn't come from a physical entity. 

There is not a strawman, unless it is the continued demanding of physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity, and denying existence because this illogical criteria hasn't been met.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Yes, you do need to define things to prove they exist. That is the whole point. You write "see Einstein." What does THAT MEAN? You need to explain yourself rather than just name drop.



No, things do not have to be specifically defined to prove they exist. See my "person in courtyard" example above. If you are still confused, read up on Einstein's theories, most of which theorize existence of things we have yet to specifically define. If you need more, The Uncertainty Principle, Hidden Variables Theory, Quantum Physics, Black Holes... all dealing with determinism, what is there but not defined, what is there but we're unable to define. 

But here, the real problem is your comprehension of what it means to "exist." Your brain does not comprehend a spiritual existence, it can only relate to physical existence. A spiritual entity will never have a physical existence, else it becomes a physical entity. So there is no way to prove spiritual existence to you, and I established this in the first two paragraphs of this thread.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How am I a bigot? You just love to throw insults around when people don't agree with you, so who's the bigot?


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you do need to define things to prove they exist. That is the whole point. You write "see Einstein." What does THAT MEAN? You need to explain yourself rather than just name drop.
> ...



The effort it would take to correct you on things where you are so fundamentally wrong, is not worth it, considering your track record of ignoring everything you can't handle or understand. You are so convinced of the "truth," I don't even understand why you are debating. Nothing about what Einstein or the uncertainty principle did or says is an example of something being claimed this is "undefined," as you are doing. The uncertainty principle is a fact of measurement at the quantum level. People know exactly what it means when they hear this term, and what it is referring to, so please enlighten me: where in the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics is a lack of definition?


----------



## HUGGY (May 13, 2013)

This thread is getting tiresome.  There is no god.  There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book.  "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God.  He is wrong.  They are not the same thing.  He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.


----------



## S.J. (May 13, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> This thread is getting tiresome.  There is no god.  There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book.  "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God.  He is wrong.  They are not the same thing.  He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.


Well that's good enough for me.


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

Boss I haven't mastered the piece by piece quote function so I will highlight your responses to me in *bold*

Boss you said:

*What you are saying is, spirituality doesn't exist, it's just ingrained into society as a matter of psychological conditioning. This makes absolutely NO logical sense. You've not pointed out a flaw, you've reaffirmed that man could not have progressed without spirituality, which was ingrained into society and psychologically conditioned. Regardless of the perspective of a given culture, the commonality is spiritual belief. This attribute has been present in humans since humans first existed, and remains our most defining characteristic as a species. *

My response:

No. I'm saying there is no proof of spirituality and that cultures that practice "spiritual customs" do so based on whatever understanding of the natural world they experience. I, therefore, also added that the continuation of so-called spiritual customs and their survival is due to the fact that certain rituals and other religious customs have become apart of that particular culture in that given region of the world. As far as spirituality contributing to the progression of man I just don't see how you've come up with the idea of progression through spirituality. If anything spiritualuity (whatever that is) has become apart of society because its a different way humans view the world.



*It means different things to different people, but basically, it is the belief in some supernatural power beyond our own physical realm of existence or comprehension. Our imaginations have forged this profound connection we can't deny, into various "religions" which attempt to define god in theological parameters. I am not here to argue theology, only the existence of spirituality and a spiritual power greater than self. *


If spirituality means different things to different people then there is (according to how you've stated in your first sentence) no real universal definition of what spirituality is. It appears that your subsequent comments thereafter was merely defining what "religious spirituality" is more than a core definition.


*Answered already. In this particular argument, "god" is a metaphoric representation of what humans have spiritually acknowledged for all their existence. It does not have to be defined specifically, I never claimed I could prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god. Also, if you read the OP, it states this very clearly in the first two paragraphs, that we have to clearly define the words used in the question, and what they mean. *

I would highly doubt a Muslim would treat "God" as an idea, than an actual deity. I would also have to disagree with your assertion that something doesn't have to be specifically defined. I believe all ideas, thoughts, feelings, even religious beliefs are compartmentalized in their respective categories because humans need to make distinctions. It is virtually impossible for any human to not define something whatever it is because the human language makes it impossible to do so.

*Again, things do not have to be specifically defined to determine existence. I see a person in the courtyard... it is confirmed this person exists without me determining if it's a man or woman, what religion they are, what color eyes and hair they have, etc. Please tell me this isn't over your head? *

Naturally, we tend to see objects or people without having to breakdown exactly what they are, this is a natural function of the human brain. However the fact that you make a determination that you see someone in the courtyard means that you have indirectly defined them as a "person" regardless of their gender, your mind makes the determination that you "see a person." Using your example, "you see someone in the courtyard" that means you've naturally determined that it was a person in a courtyard. If you were to say you see "something" in the courtyard, you've determined that you see an object in the courtyard. Either way, youir mind is making a determination of something that is there.


*Spirituality is non physical. Thoughts, dreams and love, are byproducts of something that is physical, and there is physical evidence to show they happen. The same is true with spirituality, but it doesn't come from a physical entity. 

There is not a strawman, unless it is the continued demanding of physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity, and denying existence because this illogical criteria hasn't been met*

If thoughts, and dreams are byproducts of physical reality then how do we know what humans experience regarding spirituality is not merely a byproduct of what their mind experiences in the world? In actuality what you said in the above, God can be merely a byproduct of what people experience in society which leaves no room to determine a distinction between physical reality and spirituality.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

S.J. said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is getting tiresome.  There is no god.  There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book.  "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God.  He is wrong.  They are not the same thing.  He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.
> ...



SJ. Boss isn't even arguing whatever god you believe in, so I don't understand why you even think your on the same side. It is simply your virulent hatred of atheists that drives you to his side.


----------



## S.J. (May 13, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


You're babbling.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.


----------



## S.J. (May 13, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.


All you said was you don't know why I think Boss and I are on the same side, and that I hate atheists.  You call that debating? 
If you want to debate, make a valid point.  So far, all you've done is attack, insult, and lie about what the other person said.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.
> ...



You call this debating? The only thing I've heard from you is lies, insults, and attacks without positing a shred of substance to this thread. Here's a valid point: you're in no position to complain about a lack of valid points.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Right now we can scientifically comprehend 11 dimensions even though we can only physically interact with 4 of them. The existence of these other "realms" is mathematically "proven" (via M-Theory) and given enough time scientists will probably find ways to establish "physical proof" that is observable in our own dimensions. Just as science discovered infrared, ultraviolet and x-rays in the past (none of which are directly observable given our physical limitations) science was able to find ways to make them "visible" and valuable to our everyday lives. Our scientific knowledge base is evolving and far supercedes the millennially ancient religious mythology that is utterly static and increasingly irrelevant. The quest for knowledge is a far higher purpose than any superstitious belief in imaginary deities and wasting time trying to pretend that they might exist in some other "realm". Mankind has derived (and will still derive) far greater real benefits from scientific knowledge than it ever has from all of the mythical deities  and their attendant religions combined.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss I haven't mastered the piece by piece quote function so I will highlight your responses to me in *bold*
> 
> Boss you said:
> 
> ...



There is no PHYSICAL proof, that's what you mean to say. There is overwhelming spiritual proof, but your mind is closed to it. I covered this in the first two paragraphs of the OP.



> and that cultures that practice "spiritual customs" do so based on whatever understanding of the natural world they experience. I, therefore, also added that the continuation of so-called spiritual customs and their survival is due to the fact that certain rituals and other religious customs have become apart of that particular culture in that given region of the world. As far as spirituality contributing to the progression of man I just don't see how you've come up with the idea of progression through spirituality. If anything spiritualuity (whatever that is) has become apart of society because its a different way humans view the world.



I agree that different cultures practice spirituality differently. This is why the question can't be objectively evaluated on the basis of any specific incarnation of what "god" is. Humans could ALL be wrong about what god is, that has not a thing to do with whether god exists.

If you don't see how spirituality has contributed to the progress of man, I don't know what to tell you... it has been an intrinsic and inseparable characteristic for as long as man has existed. What you keep saying is, spiritual belief is so important to man because it became so important to man. SMH.



> *It means different things to different people, but basically, it is the belief in some supernatural power beyond our own physical realm of existence or comprehension. Our imaginations have forged this profound connection we can't deny, into various "religions" which attempt to define god in theological parameters. I am not here to argue theology, only the existence of spirituality and a spiritual power greater than self. *
> 
> If spirituality means different things to different people then there is (according to how you've stated in your first sentence) no real universal definition of what spirituality is. It appears that your subsequent comments thereafter was merely defining what "religious spirituality" is more than a core definition.



Did you go to the same public school as newpolitics, where they never taught you about commas in a sentence? See... the comma, means the sentence keeps going and there is more to be added. I gave you a universal definition, which you demanded, but I did so with the caveat that spirituality means different things to different people. My subsequent comments explain how religious beliefs are manifestations of spirituality. Again, people do not have to all agree on something for it to exist. 



> *Answered already. In this particular argument, "god" is a metaphoric representation of what humans have spiritually acknowledged for all their existence. It does not have to be defined specifically, I never claimed I could prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god. Also, if you read the OP, it states this very clearly in the first two paragraphs, that we have to clearly define the words used in the question, and what they mean. *
> 
> I would highly doubt a Muslim would treat "God" as an idea, than an actual deity. I would also have to disagree with your assertion that something doesn't have to be specifically defined. I believe all ideas, thoughts, feelings, even religious beliefs are compartmentalized in their respective categories because humans need to make distinctions. It is virtually impossible for any human to not define something whatever it is because the human language makes it impossible to do so.



The question of existence has nothing to do with pleasing Muslims or recognizing deities. I don't care if you disagree with my assertion, it is still correct. We do not have to define things with specificity to prove they do exist. And again, to "exist" in a spiritual sense is not the same as to "exist" in a physical sense, further complicating the task of definition. My argument intentionally ignores specific definitions, because they aren't needed to prove existence. 



> *Again, things do not have to be specifically defined to determine existence. I see a person in the courtyard... it is confirmed this person exists without me determining if it's a man or woman, what religion they are, what color eyes and hair they have, etc. Please tell me this isn't over your head? *
> 
> Naturally, we tend to see objects or people without having to breakdown exactly what they are, this is a natural function of the human brain. However the fact that you make a determination that you see someone in the courtyard means that you have indirectly defined them as a "person" regardless of their gender, your mind makes the determination that you "see a person." Using your example, "you see someone in the courtyard" that means you've naturally determined that it was a person in a courtyard. If you were to say you see "something" in the courtyard, you've determined that you see an object in the courtyard. Either way, youir mind is making a determination of something that is there.



Are you missing the point that something certainly does not need to be defined to determine something exists? I have indirectly defined "god" as whatever spiritual force compels humans to be spiritual creatures, and has done this for all their existence. I don't have to specifically define "god" to determine this spiritual force does exist. My mind is making the determination something is there. 



> *Spirituality is non physical. Thoughts, dreams and love, are byproducts of something that is physical, and there is physical evidence to show they happen. The same is true with spirituality, but it doesn't come from a physical entity.
> 
> There is not a strawman, unless it is the continued demanding of physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity, and denying existence because this illogical criteria hasn't been met*
> 
> If thoughts, and dreams are byproducts of physical reality then how do we know what humans experience regarding spirituality is not merely a byproduct of what their mind experiences in the world? In actuality what you said in the above, God can be merely a byproduct of what people experience in society which leaves no room to determine a distinction between physical reality and spirituality.



Oh, I believe a lot of times, this is indeed the case. Especially regarding the religious manifestations from spirituality. That's why it's very important not to allow this to become a theological debate over various incarnations of god, and remain focused on the intrinsic spiritual connection humans have always had. That said, I take you back to the first two paragraphs of the OP argument, and whether you acknowledge and accept spiritual evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Right now we can scientifically comprehend 11 dimensions even though we can only physically interact with 4 of them...



Is that counting the spiritual realm?


----------



## G.T. (May 13, 2013)

Define "spiritual proof." 

Define "god."

Define "definitive proof."

Until then, thread fail.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Define "spiritual proof."
> 
> Define "god."
> 
> ...



All are covered in the first two paragraphs of the OP.

Thread success!


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Define "spiritual proof."
> ...


All debunked by me.

Thread fail.


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

*There is no PHYSICAL proof, that's what you mean to say. There is overwhelming spiritual proof, but your mind is closed to it. I covered this in the first two paragraphs of the OP.*

Exactly. You can't posit a claim that something metaphysical exists without substantiating it. You really didn't cover anything because you are positing claims without 1) defining what is something and 2) not supporting your argument. Your making the claim that something spiritually exist but cannot be proven using physical measurement, so my point is how can you posit any claim about something metaphysical if you cannot measure an incorporeal reality?

*I agree that different cultures practice spirituality differently. This is why the question can't be objectively evaluated on the basis of any specific incarnation of what "god" is. Humans could ALL be wrong about what god is, that has not a thing to do with whether god exists.

If you don't see how spirituality has contributed to the progress of man, I don't know what to tell you... it has been an intrinsic and inseparable characteristic for as long as man has existed. What you keep saying is, spiritual belief is so important to man because it became so important to man. SMH.*

Ok. Religious spirituality has its benefits, after all it inspired mankind to examine the cosmos, medicine, science throughout the ages. But spirituality, along with man's lust for dominance, also inspired man to commit murder, rape, looting and much more atrocities.

*Did you go to the same public school as newpolitics, where they never taught you about commas in a sentence? See... the comma, means the sentence keeps going and there is more to be added. I gave you a universal definition, which you demanded, but I did so with the caveat that spirituality means different things to different people. My subsequent comments explain how religious beliefs are manifestations of spirituality. Again, people do not have to all agree on something for it to exist. *

No. You gave me a universal definition of religion the following is a true definition:

spir·i·tu·al adjective \&#712;spir-i-ch&#601;-w&#601;l, -i-ch&#601;l, -ich-w&#601;l\
Definition of SPIRITUAL
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs> 
2a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual> 
3: concerned with religious values 

See:Spiritual - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


*My argument intentionally ignores specific definitions, because they aren't needed to prove existence. *

I take you didn't study philosophy. You can't posit a claim without defining it to support whether its true. Thus your claim that X is true (X representing spirituality) is a fallacy because you have not determined how spirituality exists or failed to do so.


----------



## numan (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> I also think, since all US presidents have been spiritual, we're safe with them.


Perhaps they were simply unprincipled liars who would say anything to become President?
.


----------



## amrchaos (May 13, 2013)

I wonder if spirituality is like the Emperors new clothes.  You are an idiot if you cannot see the fine embroidery!

Apparently, that seems to be what Boss is implying to those of us that dont "see"--or is it "Feel"--this spiritual realm or have spiritual experinces.

We are spiritual fools that are to incompetent to realize the metaphysical world right in front of us.  Not a very conducive approach to teach someone about things they do not see.


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> I wonder if spirituality is like the Emperors new clothes.  You are an idiot if you cannot see the fine embroidery!Apparently, that seems to be what Boss is implying to those of us that dont "see"--or is it "Feel"--this spiritual realm or have spiritual experinces.
> 
> We are spiritual fools that are to incompetent to realize the metaphysical world right in front of us.  Not a very conducive approach to teach someone about things they do not see.



The highlighted was well put.

What I'm trying to get through the Boss is how do we discern spiritual experience from natural experience if spiritual experience cannot be physically measured?


----------



## amrchaos (May 13, 2013)

I think I asked a similiar questionto yours earlier.

For awhile, I thought he was talking in terms of concepts. Seems like every argument he pushed  in the beginning was more of proof for the concept of god.

But when he began to talk of spiritual proofs--the argument began to settle on what exactly is "spiritual proof".  So far it seems to be other peoples claims of spiritual experience which we suppose to take as is.

I have some issues with calling that proof.


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> I think I asked a similiar questionto yours earlier.
> 
> For awhile, I thought he was talking in terms of concepts. Seems like every argument he pushed  in the beginning was more of proof for the concept of god.
> 
> ...



Sorry what was the question you asked earlier? I apologize if I missed it


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Ah ...that's" stalking" Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense..

and no we're not buying you stockings for your female impersonator show.baahahahahaha!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2013)

> Definitive proof that God exists?



Which one? There are so many gods to choose from. Even this one.


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another classic false declarative from wyc.
none of you arguments trump anything, even the smallest bit of analytical logic is enough to dismantle them...


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

belief is only proof of belief 
not the thing, god, entity, believed in.
the same logic applies to spirituality..
it only proves itself.
as does faith..
as does behavior. 
without empirical, quantifiable, evidence.
it's all as ephemeral as a dream..

do you want fries with that!


----------



## G.T. (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Define "spiritual proof."
> ...



no they weren't.


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> *There is no PHYSICAL proof, that's what you mean to say. There is overwhelming spiritual proof, but your mind is closed to it. I covered this in the first two paragraphs of the OP.*
> 
> Exactly. You can't posit a claim that something metaphysical exists without substantiating it. You really didn't cover anything because you are positing claims without 1) defining what is something and 2) not supporting your argument. Your making the claim that something spiritually exist but cannot be proven using physical measurement, so my point is how can you posit any claim about something metaphysical if you cannot measure an incorporeal reality?



I did substantiate it. I offered 70k years of human spiritual connection, an attribute that is intrinsically tied to our species, the most distinct and defining attribute of our species, as a matter of fact. I can not prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence, to expect this is illogical. If I could prove a spiritual entity with physical evidence, it would then be a physical entity, provable by physical evidence. I don't have to define something to prove it exists. I don't have to measure something to prove it exists. These are criteria you are demanding that aren't needed in evaluation of existence. Also, I will add this... nothing says we will never be able to measure incorporeal reality. Because man cannot do something at this time, does not arrogantly mean that man will NEVER be able to. Open your mind to possibility, that's what Science does. 



> *I agree that different cultures practice spirituality differently. This is why the question can't be objectively evaluated on the basis of any specific incarnation of what "god" is. Humans could ALL be wrong about what god is, that has not a thing to do with whether god exists.
> 
> If you don't see how spirituality has contributed to the progress of man, I don't know what to tell you... it has been an intrinsic and inseparable characteristic for as long as man has existed. What you keep saying is, spiritual belief is so important to man because it became so important to man. SMH.*
> 
> Ok. Religious spirituality has its benefits, after all it inspired mankind to examine the cosmos, medicine, science throughout the ages. But spirituality, along with man's lust for dominance, also inspired man to commit murder, rape, looting and much more atrocities.



But "religious" spirituality is a manifestation of human spiritual connection. It's important not to prejudice our objectivity by confusing religious manifestations with spirituality. As I said before, ALL humans could be completely wrong about what god is, including me. This doesn't matter with regard to the question of existence. 

The fact remains, there is no denying the spiritual connection humans have always had, nor the magnanimous achievements of our species over all other living things. To rationalize these two things, unique to humans, are not related or connected, is foolish and shortsighted. Everything we are as a species of life, is tied to our spiritual connection. 




> *Did you go to the same public school as newpolitics, where they never taught you about commas in a sentence? See... the comma, means the sentence keeps going and there is more to be added. I gave you a universal definition, which you demanded, but I did so with the caveat that spirituality means different things to different people. My subsequent comments explain how religious beliefs are manifestations of spirituality. Again, people do not have to all agree on something for it to exist. *
> 
> No. You gave me a universal definition of religion the following is a true definition:
> 
> ...



You will note that my screen name is not "Merriam" and I am not here to post dictionary definitions readily available to you or anyone else who bothers to look them up. 



> *My argument intentionally ignores specific definitions, because they aren't needed to prove existence. *
> 
> I take you didn't study philosophy. You can't posit a claim without defining it to support whether its true. Thus your claim that X is true (X representing spirituality) is a fallacy because you have not determined how spirituality exists or failed to do so.



How many times do we have to go over this, I did define it. Now you are demanding I explain how it works before we can examine whether it exists. I didn't study much philosophy, but I did study logic. Things exist whether we can determine how they exist, surely you know this?


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> belief is only proof of belief
> not the thing, god, entity, believed in.
> the same logic applies to spirituality..
> it only proves itself.
> ...



You refuse the evidence because it is not physically measurable. Spiritual entities are not physical in nature, logic dictates, they would not provide physical evidence. You are demanding something illogical to prove "existence" which means something completely different with regard to spiritual existence. 

We can look at physical science to see if there is any recorded instance of a living thing, exhibiting an inherent behavior for all of it's existence, without any reason. We don't see other creatures duped into believing falsehoods and myths for their entire existence. Even the simplest, least intelligent forms of life, follow form and function. Regardless of how much you hate and loathe religious belief, human spirituality has always been vital to who we are and what we are. This is empirical evidence. 

Hold the fries, I am having a salad!


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Sorry... I am at my quota for responding to jackasses today. Maybe tomorrow?


----------



## G.T. (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're the jackass.

God was NOT defined in the OP.
Spiritual proof was NOT defined in the OP.
Definitive proof was NOT defined in the OP.

Saying they were doesn't make it so, dipstick.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 13, 2013)

boss said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > right now we can scientifically comprehend 11 dimensions even though we can only physically interact with 4 of them...
> ...



11 + 0 = 11


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

Ok Boss it seems we ran into an impasse regarding this issue. I think what hurts your argument boss is you claim that spirituality exists as it is intrinsically tied to the human species based on your example of the ancient culture practicing spiritualized rituals then you claim that spirituality cannot be physically measured but somehow spirituality is intrinsic in the human species?


You cant have it both ways.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

This is useless. Boss has a mental allergy to sound or valid reasoning. It is anathema to him.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Ok Boss it seems we ran into an enpasse regarding this issue. I think what hurts your argument boss is you claim that spirituality exists as it is intrinsically tied to the human species based on your example of the ancient culture practicing spiritualized rituals then you claim that spirituality cannot be physically measured but somehow spirituality is intrinsic in the human species?
> 
> You cant have it both ways.



I'm not trying to have it both ways. Behavior is certainly observable and measurable. 

This behavioral attribute has existed in man for as long as man has existed. It is the most prominent and distinctly unique attribute we humans possess. To argue that it is largely insignificant, a delusion, a myth or fallacy we were conditioned into, is actually in contradiction to the theories of Darwin, as well as everything we know about animal behavior. The ONLY basis of support for this frankly illogical conclusion, is that physical science offers no physical proof of spiritual entities.


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> > Ok Boss it seems we ran into an enpasse regarding this issue. I think what hurts your argument boss is you claim that spirituality exists as it is intrinsically tied to the human species based on your example of the ancient culture practicing spiritualized rituals then you claim that spirituality cannot be physically measured but somehow spirituality is intrinsic in the human species?
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 13, 2013)

Aristotle said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Aristotle said:
> ...


----------



## t_polkow (May 13, 2013)

Thomas Jefferson

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity 
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the 
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them 
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into 
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes; 
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > belief is only proof of belief
> ...


wrong again it's not empirical in any sense of the word ..religious belief (FAITH SPIRTUALITY) are in lieu (instead) of evidence as there is no proof they exist as anything more than ideas or more accurately wishes..


----------



## Aristotle (May 13, 2013)

This sums it up for me here guys


View attachment $untitled.bmp


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

> Boss are you not understanding what I am saying?
> 
> You are arguing that spirituality cannot be physically measured, but then you go on to say that spirituality is intrinsic in the human species. If there is something the human species that is a subconscious force that drives the human then it is a measurable thing! Just because you can't test it in a lab does not mean it can't be measured. Human behavior and neurocognitive function does it naturally.



I understand what you are saying, but you are conflating spirituality and spiritual nature. It is obvious that people practice spirituality, the belief in a spiritual nature. To argue that "spirituality" doesn't exist, is stupid and ignorant, because people have been practicing spirituality forever. There is no physical proof of spiritual nature or things of a spiritual nature, and there never will be, or they would become physical.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is no physical evidence, but spiritual nature and spiritual entities aren't physical. As the OP states, unless you accept spiritual evidence, it's not possible to prove spiritual existence. Page after page, you and others continue to reaffirm this point, and I thank you.


----------



## newpolitics (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why have you not even attempted to refute my allegation that "spiritual evidence" is begging the question? Is it because you simply can not, and don't want to be seen as being unable to?


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


bullshit! we live in a physical universe.. even thought has a physical component..
if spiritual entities existed.. they would also have a physical component..


----------



## daws101 (May 13, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


does boss kinda smell like ywc?


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Who has established that it doesn't? Not science. 

We understand a physical universe because we exist in a physical realm. Nothing has concluded there is no other possible realm other than physical. Just because you reject a spiritual realm on the basis that it doesn't provide physical evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there. Nothing has established it's not there, including physical science.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Because I don't comprehend you gibberish. Begging WHAT question? You haven't said!


----------



## dblack (May 13, 2013)

I don't think there's really any refuting that gods exist. The interesting quesion is, "what is their nature?".

As others here have mentioned, there are many things in the world that exist without a physical manifestation. Ideas, patterns, stories - all of these exist with or without a physical representation. The very idea of the human soul - the thing we each are referring to when we say "I" - is no less abstract and immaterial as the notion of god.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 13, 2013)

not to mention an accomplished condition void of evil prior to ones death allowing for acceptance into the OuterWorld of the Everlasting.


----------



## S.J. (May 13, 2013)

It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit, and without it, physical life cannot exist.  We can't see it but we know it's there.  When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body.  That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2013)

S.J. said:


> *It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit,* and without it, physical life cannot exist.  We can't see it but we know it's there.  When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body.  That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.


But our spirit is the result of our physical existence, so you have it backwards. Without physical life, spirit cannot exist. Our spirit lives in everyone and everything we come in contact with during our physical life. Our spirit lives in our works long after our physical body is gone. I proved that fact with my example of the composer.

The truly arrogant shitheads, to quote you, on this thread are the ones who can only pontificate that physical life cannot exist without a God spirit, but can't give a single example of spirit existing before our physical bodies.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

Ed, I have challenged you to prove your argument, and you haven't.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > *It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit,* and without it, physical life cannot exist.  We can't see it but we know it's there.  When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body.  That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.
> ...


I'm sorry, but your composer analogy isn't an example of a spirit living on.  In your analogy, it's the memory of what that spirit accomplished that lives on, but that's a completely different subject.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however.  Are you saying that the spirit is physical?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Ed, I have challenged you to prove your argument, and you haven't.


Every time I prove it you run away and hide.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


When a sad piece of music moves you to tears it is not a memory of the composer you never met that is moving you emotionally, it is the spirit of the composer that is alive in his music. The composer and the sound of the notes are physical, but the emotional response is spiritual. 
The physical begets the spiritual.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Backwards, but forget the composer analogy.  Do you agree that the spirit is not physical?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


How can it possibly be backwards? 
The spirit in the music that does not yet exist yet does not create the physical composer!


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I said forget the fucking composer analogy and answer the question.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


When did I ever say, or even imply, that the spirit of the composer that lives in his music was in any way shape or form physical?


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Apparently, you know nothing about logical fallacies. It is then no wonder that you make so many of them. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that employs circular logic, where the conclusion is contained in the premise. It is circular because you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. In this case, you are assuming the spiritual when you start with "spiritual evidence," and conclude with a spiritual realm. Hence, your argument fails. You can't have a valid and sound argument when it contains a logical fallacy.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Stop being rude.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So, you're saying the spirit is not physical?  And please get off the composer shit, ok?


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm sorry, did you have something to add to this discussion?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Why do you play dumb?
The composer is physical, his spirit that lives in his music is not.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Not playing dumb, I just want to be clear on what you're saying.  Now, do you believe that our spirit is what makes us who we are?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Again, I already answered this many many posts ago. Why do you play dumb? I told you you had it backwards then and you still have it backwards.
Spirit does not make us, we create our spirit by our deeds which define who we are.

Here's what I posted before:



edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > *It's not our physical bodies that define who we are, it's our spirit,* and without it, physical life cannot exist.  We can't see it but we know it's there.  When it's not there, we're looking at a dead body.  That may not be proof of God but it's proof of a non-physical existence, something that certain arrogant shitheads on this thread refuse to acknowledge.
> ...


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I don't think you know what the word means.

Definition of SPIRIT

1
: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2
: a supernatural being or essence: as
a capitalized : holy spirit
b : soul 2a
c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : ghost 2
d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I don't care. Your demeanor is uncalled for.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


I edited my comment.  Go back and read it.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Gee by that very limited definition there is no such thing as school spirit!

Definition of spirit in Oxford Dictionaries (US English) (US)

Definition of spirit
noun
*1the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul:*
we seek a harmony between body and spirit
*the nonphysical part of a person regarded as a persons true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation:*
a year after he left, his spirit is still present
the nonphysical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
a supernatural being:
shrines to nature spirits
(the Spirit)short for Holy Spirit.
archaic a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena.

2 [in singular] those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period:
the university is a symbol of the nations egalitarian spirit
[with adjective] a person identified with their most prominent mental or moral characteristics or with their role in a group or movement:
he was a leading spirit in the conference
a specified emotion or mood, especially one prevailing at a particular time:
I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence
(spirits) a persons mood:
the warm weather lifted everyones spirits after the winter
the quality of courage, energy, and determination or assertiveness:
his visitors admired his spirit and good temper
the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something:
he confessed in a spirit of self-respect, not defiance
the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation:
the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter

3 (usually spirits) strong distilled liquor such as brandy, whiskey, gin, or rum.
[with modifier] a volatile liquid, especially a fuel, prepared by distillation:
aviation spirit
archaic a solution of volatile components extracted from something, typically by distillation or by solution in alcohol:
spirits of turpentine

verb (spirits, spiriting, spirited)
[with object]
convey rapidly and secretly:
stolen cows were spirited away some distance to prevent detection


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


If you want to discuss "school spirit", you should be posting in another forum.  Maybe you should just admit you're in over your head on this subject and get out before you further embarrass yourself.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Spoken like a true gentlemen. Nice work.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


I haven't embarrassed myself in the least!

Which came first, the physical school or the school spirit?


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Tell ya what, when you get out of high school, let me know.  Maybe we'll give this debate thing another shot.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


All you have left is arrogant condescension. You would say, that is the spirit that makes you what you are! 
Thank you.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'll look forward to your graduation and hopefully you will have grown up a bit by then.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Does it really matter? This is a purely personal, if not subjective matter. There is no PROOF god exists one way or the other, and we all know it. And there isnt any reason to debate it either. Egotism  maybe.
> ...



Weapons of mass destruction no politician should have access to them.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



There is no logical fallacy here, except for your own. You expect physical evidence to support spiritual entities. The circular logic is, god must not exist because spiritual entities have no physical evidence. Or.. I don't need to prove god doesn't exist because no physical evidence can prove god exists. 

I am not assuming there is spirituality, it's a proven fact there is. People have been spiritual since they've been human. The results of humans being spiritual, connecting with something spiritual, and practicing spirituality, provides overwhelming spiritual evidence. You don't recognize it, you refuse to accept it, you will not acknowledge it. That simply does not mean it's not there, no matter how much you reject it, hate it, or attack it. 

What is amazing to me is, how you totally abandon scientific method. You arrogantly assume, since physical science can't currently measure spiritual existence, it won't ever be able to do so. You simply can't know this, and to assume it, is contradicting scientific method. It defeats the whole purpose of science to do what you are doing, drawing a conclusion as to the existence of a spiritual entity. Science has not concluded this, YOU have. Where you have drawn conclusions, science continues to ask questions. 

We can observe other living things, and we see NO example of anything that is duped into a behavior to "explain the unknown" or whatever. We see NO examples of animal behavior which persists simply because of social pressure from the other animals. In EVERY case, we find that animal behavior has a purpose fundamental to the species. Everything you have suggested to explain away human spirituality, contradicts what we've observed in other animals. 

What we can be relatively certain about is this, whether a spiritual "god" or "entity" exists, humans have a fundamental reason and purpose for needing to be spiritually connected to something. It's how we're built, it defines us, it is our most distinctly unique characteristic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



God and the angels are spirits why would we not be on the side of BOSS ?


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Which came first, the physical school or the school spirit?



Now you are playing semantics games. Like the word "physical," the word "spirit" can have different meanings. In the dictionary, this is usually indicated by numbers, some words have literally dozens of meanings. The word "set" has over 400 possible meanings.

This discussion has nothing to do with "school spirit" and is about human spirituality. Now, you have made the point that human spirituality doesn't exist without humans, but you have not proven that a spiritual existence doesn't exist without humans. To make such a conclusion is the same as claiming physical existence doesn't exist without humans. Of course, humans can't realize physical existence if humans don't exist. But this is extremely retarded logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.



You're not debating. You have offered no opposing view for the evidence for spirituality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well so far this is the only post worth a response by you. By all means dismantle the argument or go to sleep.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Anything you say Hollie.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



It's the fixed stare and dilated pupils of those in a deep stupor.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Which came first, the physical school or the school spirit?
> ...


There you go again demanding that I must disprove your claims rather than YOU prove them. The burden is on YOU to prove that the spiritual exists without humans. I proved that the spiritual comes after the existence of humans and gave an unassailable example of such. You claim that the spiritual can also precede the existence of humans and therefore it is up yo YOU to prove it and give at least one unassailable example. You have done neither. Whenever someone debunks your claims you simply dismiss them as not believing in the spiritual, including ME of all people!!! 

I have made it very clear that I believe in existential spirituality but question metaphysical spirituality and so far you have not answered any of my questions. All you have done is pontificate the same debunked examples and mindlessly condemn any who do not accept them as someone not accepting the spiritual realm because it is not physical. Saying that humans have been spiritual for 70k years does not prove that that spirituality was metaphysical rather than existential no matter how many times you repeat it without proof. You have to prove that putting ocher in a grave was metaphysical spirituality and not existential spirituality, something you have not done yet.
Get it?


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.
> ...


What evidence for "spirituality". You confuse "spirituality" with human personality.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Gods, angels, jinn, Bigfoot, etc., are of myth and legend.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope, not going to let you turn the tables back around here, you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans. You've not proven that. It's not up to me to disprove your theory. It's up to you to prove your theory, which you can't do. 



> I proved that the spiritual comes after the existence of humans and gave an unassailable example of such.



No you did not. You proved that human spirituality can't precede human existence, but human understanding of physical nature can also not precede human existence. 



> You claim that the spiritual can also precede the existence of humans and therefore it is up yo YOU to prove it and give at least one unassailable example.



I can't even prove spiritual existence WITH human existence, using only physical evidence. This is admitted in the OP. 



> You have done neither. Whenever someone debunks your claims you simply dismiss them as not believing in the spiritual, including ME of all people!!!



I don't know why you believe you are special, but you've not debunked anything I have claimed. 



> I have made it very clear that I believe in existential spirituality but question metaphysical spirituality and so far you have not answered any of my questions. All you have done is pontificate the same debunked examples and mindlessly condemn any who do not accept them as someone not accepting the spiritual realm because it is not physical. Saying that humans have been spiritual for 70k years does not prove that that spirituality was metaphysical rather than existential no matter how many times you repeat it without proof. You have to prove that putting ocher in a grave was metaphysical spirituality and not existential spirituality, something you have not done yet.
> Get it?



Nope, I don't get it. What you presented was essentially the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument. Your theory is, the tree makes no sound, and I can't prove that it does. And logically speaking, if there is no human there to measure the sound waves, it can't be proven they existed. And what exactly does "exist" mean to someone who only recognizes physical existence? If you reject spiritual existence, you have no way of conceptualizing existence of a spiritual entity. Your mind does not allow "existence" to be anything other than physical, therefore, you believe it's impossible for something to have "existence" but not in a physical sense. Spiritual existence becomes an oxymoron, and you refuse to accept spiritual evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans.


Link!


----------



## numan (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.


And even "history" is often lies and almost always the propaganda of those who won the wars.

However, careful research and probablistic arguments can often rise a bit above mere opinion and speculation.
.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > you made the argument that spiritual nature can't exist without humans.
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/7233458-post843.html

*"Without physical life, spirit cannot exist."* _~edthecynic_


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.
> ...



I have refuted his claim for the supernatural by pointing out logical flaws in his argumentation. I don't have to offer an opposing view. That would only be a red herring. You don't understand how argumentation works, do you?


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Thank you for confirming my point. This is a defeater for his spiritual evidence, and is all I've been saying. People's spirituality throughout history represent opinions. Not facts. They are definitionally subjective, not objective.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.
> ...



Correct, and when we examine the human species, we observe an inherent behavioral characteristic which distinguishes us from all other living things, spirituality. When we examine other living things and behavioral characteristics, we find no evidence these attributes exist because the species was fooled or tricked into the behavior. We find no evidence they rely on attributes which are irrational and unfounded or unimportant. In every example, we find inherent behaviors have fundamental purpose, a reason why they exist and remain an attribute of behavior in the species. These reasons are legitimate, and not because of "social pressure" from other animals. 

It is suggested that human spirituality is the result of humans "explaining the unknown" but again, we see no evidence of any other living thing, needing to explain the unknown. Plus... that's precisely what Science does. If this were the reason for human spirituality, the introduction of science would supplant the need for spirituality, and it has not done so. There is much more to human spirituality than causal explanation can offer. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for the phenomenon, is that a spiritual nature exists and humans have the ability to connect with it. That alone, doesn't prove it true, it simply says it's the simplest explanation, and is most logical, unless it can be replaced with an argument of greater explanatory power. So far, none have been presented.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



If you say so but I do agree big foot is a myth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Very little is known concerning the past it's merely opinion and speculation except for recorded history.
> ...



That is what you think of historians ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Get over yourself then by your reasoning I refuted the evolutionary theory due to logical flaws within the theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Thank you for admitting the secularists theories have been refuted.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Evolutionary theory has physical evidence. You choose to deny this. Spiritual evidence on the other hand, is nowhere to be found, because it doesn't exist. Any perturbations in this universe that are caused supernaturally would still leave a physical trace. Without physical evidence, you have nothing.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How have you come to this errant conclusion?


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Such nonsense. This "spiritually" term you're using as a smokescreen to press your religious agenda is pointless. Sentience and higher brain functions (AKA personality) fully account for human perception not found In other animals. 


Our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants --yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.

Also, why would god create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities-just at a lower "wattage"?

Yet more confusion , making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would a god do this, particularly when the bible says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that god purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?

There's no mumbo jumbo of supernatural entities required to understand human sentience.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

At best, without physical evidence, Boss, you are claiming a "Sensas Divinitas." At worst he is claiming nothing. Id like to know which evidence you have to support a Sensas Divinitas in humans? This is an old idea (Calvin?).

Again too, Neanderthals had religion too, so  humans are not the only species to exhibit this behavior, as you keep claiming.

Lastly, Rationality does not factor into survival. Often, irrationality does. I'm not sure where you got the idea that rationality is a criteria for natural selection. The only criteria is that you survive, and reproduce. When Lemmings jump off a cliff, is that rational? Yet, here they are.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Humans have written books and passed on tales of Bigfoot just as they have done for tales of gawds, angels, jinn, etc. 

Claims to Bigfoot are no more convincing than claims to your gawds. They all share a common theme for their "existence": human frailties of fear and ignorance.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And there is no proof otherwise, unlike existentialism which has been unassailably proven.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> At best, without physical evidence, Boss, you are claiming a "Sensas Divinitas." At worst he is claiming nothing. Id like to know which evidence you have to support a Sensas Divinitas in humans? This is an old idea (Calvin?).
> 
> Again too, Neanderthals had religion too, so  humans are not the only species to exhibit this behavior, as you keep claiming.
> 
> Lastly, Rationality does not factor into survival. Often, irrationality does. I'm not sure where you got the idea that rationality is a criteria for natural selection. The only criteria is that you survive, and reproduce. When Lemmings jump off a cliff, is that rational? Yet, here they are.




First of all, Neanderthals did not practice "religion." There is some disputable evidence they MAY have practiced some crude forms of spiritual belief, but this is highly subjective. 

You can come up with all kinds of latin terms to make yourself sound smart, it doesn't win a debate. We've covered the "survival" excuse, it makes no rational sense. Millions of spiritual practitioners have been murdered because of their beliefs, it was not in the interest of survival that they continued to be spiritual... in fact, the opposite was true, it was very detrimental to survival for many years. 

Nothing you have come up with to explain away human spirituality, has been adequate or legitimate. We either have to suspend logic, or reality, or both. And you continue to argue from a perspective that science has somehow "proven" that spiritual nature does not exist. It simply hasn't made such a conclusion, even though you seem to believe it has. Man could very well discover tomorrow, that physical evidence shows a spiritual existence. The fact that it doesn't do so today, means little to science. Yet you continue to rely on the lack of physical evidence to support your disbelief in possibility of something not physical in nature.

As I have previously stated (and this is profound, you should write it down): Whenever you have drawn a definite conclusion from scientific evidence, you have stopped practicing science and begun practicing faith. Science does not conclude things, it presents probabilities and predictions. You may believe that a "fact" has been determined, but science does not make such a distinction.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There is no PHYSICAL proof otherwise, and you REJECT spiritual proof. This is among the first points I made in the OP, and you continue to re-confirm my point.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > At best, without physical evidence, Boss, you are claiming a "Sensas Divinitas." At worst he is claiming nothing. Id like to know which evidence you have to support a Sensas Divinitas in humans? This is an old idea (Calvin?).
> ...



It doesn't matter that people have died for their beliefs. That is human nature. This is not evidence of anything.

Neanderthals were likely spiritual, an yes, it could be called religious observance.

You have google. Look up the word if you don't know it means. 

I don't have to explain away spirituality. It is not evidence of the spiritual.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Oh, and how do you support disbelief?
You can't support something that doesn't exist. Logic...


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Yes, it is evidence that spirituality is not related to survival. 
No, there is little evidence Neanderthals were "spiritual" and NO evidence they were "religious." 
Inherent behavior for all of mankind's existence, is indeed evidence of something. You don't believe in spiritual nature and refuse to accept spiritual evidence, therefore, a spiritual entity is impossible to prove to you, unless we happen to find physical evidence, which might very well be possible, but it's not logical.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Also, science certainly does make conclusions and uses facts. It concludes deductively when forming a theory. Absolute certainty is a red herring, and nowhere did I insinuate this, which you are implying heavily. It is understood in scientific epistemology that all truths are  are "temporary" until disproven. If there is no evidence at all, NO CLAIMS ARE MADE. You are being unscientific in your methodology, given your total lack of physical evidence. Remember methadological naturalism. Science is bound to it. You know nothing of science if you think otherwise. How many times do I need to restate things?


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Claiming something supernatural automatically disqualifies you from being scientific. Yet, here you are, lecturing me about science, while you are claiming god. Don't mince my words. Science doesn't claim the supernatural doesn't exist, simply that it is beyond the scope of its methodology. This is entailed in the concept of methadological naturalism, which we went over, yet here you are, saying that I claim certainty about about scientific  claims. Nor did I imply this.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

> Yet you continue to rely on the lack of physical evidence to support your disbelief in possibility of something not physical in nature.
> 
> .



This is the most asinine statement I've ever heard. Using this standard, I can make any claim I want without any evidence,  and you are in  no position to refute me. You just refuted your own argument, btw.

A giant tooth fairy exists that created the universe. She has purple wings, has a great smile, and is a really nice. There is no physical evidence of this, and you shouldn't expect  to find any, because she is not a physical entity. Therefore, it is true. Any attempt by you to refute this is just your not accepting non-physical evidence.

Your claim is no better than the crap I just wrote. Actually, it is worse. I defined my claim.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Its a proven fact that there is a spiritual realm?


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Most importantly, non-physical evidence  does not equal spiritual evidence. This is a false dichotomy. You have not demonstrated that the only two options are physical and spiritual,
therefore non-physical doesn't imply spiritual. Non-physical could mean an infinite number of possibilities, which may or may not exist at all. Another logical fallacy on yours.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist 	

There is No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide


A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven  indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist  just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings. 



What Can Science Prove or Disprove?

To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon." 

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful." 

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically. 



Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis  How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God: 
1.Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5.If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method. 



Certainty & Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move. 

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldnt prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional. 

By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration. 



What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful." 

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there  nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing. 

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


already have.. your willful ignorance prevents you from accepting it.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

> Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist



This is not true. It may be your FAITH, but Science has determined no such thing.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Even if we accept the legitimacy of the term 'spiritual evidence (I dont), we should always ignore this kind of 'evidence because we know for a fact that it points in the wrong direction far more often that it points in the right one.

In the world there are about 10,000 distinct, mutually exclusive religions (not counting sub denominations), all of them with members who are of very strong faith. Members of these religions rely on what they might call spiritual evidence to be sure that they are following the correct doctrine.

We know that the members of at least 9,999 of these religions have reached the wrong conclusion from their spiritual evidence. If were optimistic we can assign spiritual evidence a 1 in 10,000 chance of being reliable; in other words we know that spiritual evidence, if it can ever be trusted, is vastly more often misleading that its ever reliable.

Even if we assume that one of the religions is true, if you follow a religion the chances are overwhelmingly high that your religion belongs to that massive group of 9,999 that are falseand your deep conviction that you are on the right team does nothing to change those odds.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*


false .....I can say conclusively that gravity works and it not faith...
I can also say conclusively there is no quantifiable evidence for spiritual entities...and it's not faith..
as explained before faith is in lieu of evidence..


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



This is basically establishing what I stated in the first two paragraphs of my OP. 

It is a long drawn-out pontification of this simple point: *Refusal to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, prohibits god from ever being proven.* Over and over, the author refers to "we find no evidence" but what is meant is "no *physical* evidence." Science deals with *PHYSICAL* evidence, not spiritual. In order to verify *spiritual* existence, you must evaluate the overwhelming *spiritual* evidence, which is not *physical* evidence, and which, you do not accept or believe in. We continue to go in circles with this, but I pointed this out in the first two paragraphs of the OP, you are simply reaffirming my point.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*
> ...



No, you can't say that unless you abandon science and practice faith. You can say that science *predicts* gravity works and will work, that is a true statement. 

I concluded in the first two paragraphs of the OP in this thread, that there is no physical evidence, quantifiable or otherwise, so you are only confirming what I said. The evidence which proves spiritual existence is largely spiritual evidence, which you do not accept. You have FAITH that, because there is no quantifiable physical evidence of a spiritual entity, it must not "exist" and you are probably correct, a spiritual entity does not have physical evidence of physical existence.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> , *you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence*
> .



The term "*Definitive Proof*" completely excludes phony *"spiritual evidence"* of any sort whatsoever.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Even if we accept the legitimacy of the term 'spiritual evidence (I dont), we should always ignore this kind of 'evidence because we know for a fact that it points in the wrong direction far more often that it points in the right one.
> 
> In the world there are about 10,000 distinct, mutually exclusive religions (not counting sub denominations), all of them with members who are of very strong faith. Members of these religions rely on what they might call spiritual evidence to be sure that they are following the correct doctrine.
> 
> ...



Again, you are trying as so many have, to conflate religion and spirituality, and they are not the same thing. Religion is a manifestation of spiritual belief. It is created by man in an attempt to understand something not of the physical realm, which man can connect with, and has done so for all of humanity. It is strong evidence that humans have an intrinsic connection with something outside the physical realm we understand through science, but that does not mean that religion is correct in the various incarnations it has developed, ALL religion could be totally wrong. In fact, saying that spirituality is "supernatural" could also be totally wrong, we do not know conclusively. At this time, we have no physical evidence to support spirituality, but that does not mean we will never have. This is the arrogance of man at play, we always look at the universe as if we currently have all the answers, and we simply don't. You have drawn conclusions based on what science can offer evidence for at this time, but while you have drawn a conclusion, science continues asking questions. You have stopped practicing science, and have adopted a faith and belief. Congrats!


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > , *you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence*
> ...



Nope. Again, this is explained in the first two paragraphs of the OP. Maybe you should read it again?  We must first define the terms, and if you reject spiritual evidence, you can never find definitive proof of a spiritual entity. If you only recognize physical existence, you can never comprehend spiritual existence, the term is of no use to you.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


bullshit! since there is nothing to accept or acknowledge, logic would dictate that nothing is being prohibited as no actual  hard evidence (just hearsay) has been produced to be prohibited.
I win.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


once again using the F word..
if a spiritual entity has no physical component we can never experience it, as everything we experience is physical even the so called spiritual is a electrochemical reaction to stimuli.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> bullshit! since there is nothing to accept or acknowledge, logic would dictate that nothing is being prohibited as no actual  hard evidence (just hearsay) has been produced to be prohibited.
> I win.



Sorry, but "bullshit" is not an adequate rebuttal to my argument. There is MUCH to accept and acknowledge, you simply refuse to do so, because you reject spiritual evidence. This is covered in the first two paragraphs of the OP. I literally began my argument establishing this very point, which you and others have continued to confirm throughout this thread. While I appreciate you reaffirming my point, you have not defeated my argument. If your point was to tell me that no physical evidence supports physical existence of a spiritual entity in a spiritual nature, then you have "won" ...however, since I made that point in the opening argument, there is no prize, just a "thank you" from me, for reaffirming part of my argument.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> once again using the F word..
> *if a spiritual entity has no physical component we can never experience it*, as everything we experience is physical even the so called spiritual is a electrochemical reaction to stimuli.



But there is evidence we do experience spirituality, we've been doing this for over 70k years.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Physical evidence yes but it's the interpretation of the evidence that is subjective uh oh we are back to faith again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Because of the many interpretations within the theories that defy logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nothing more than a biased view here.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > , *you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence*
> ...



Exactly. Definitive proof cant mean something immaterial that is nowhere to be found in the entire universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Once again you show your ignorance concerning Science.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Except that they don't. None of them. Anywhere. It is entirely based on evidence, so it can't be Illogical. It isn't some abstract, written syllogistic proof with premises and a conclusion. It is an posteriori postulation that explains the evidence perfectly.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*
> ...



You can claim anything you like but that does not mean it was accurate.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nothing is anything with you, except what you believe, of course. Then it is something.


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > once again using the F word..
> ...



Not just us. Neanderthals too.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > once again using the F word..
> ...


do we now? have any proof that what you call spirituality is not just misfiring neurons 
btw  where do you get the 70k number from?


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


again, that would be you..


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



If you were accurate they could answer the origins question. They have not been able to show a mechanism for Macro-evolution that is above reproach.


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


yes you do claim everything except fact.. and it's never accurate..


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Would you like to compare reume's again monkey boy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! there is no  special mechanism for the false premise of macro evolution. evolution is evolution period.  

 Macro-evolution is specious speculation...and it's highly reproachable.to say it isn't is arrogant and ignorant, but hey look who always brings it up!


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that's resume' and do you really want to have your ass handed to you again!


----------



## daws101 (May 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you've just proven my point.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yes we do. Neurons don't seem to misfire in any other species for all of their existence, prompting them to behave irrationally for no apparent reason, so I can't accept this argument regarding humans. It defies what science has observed. 

70k is a rough estimate of when we discover human civilizations practicing spiritual rituals and ceremonies. Some say 100k or more, others say 40k or so... I split the difference. 

newpolitics is running around claiming Neanderthals were "religious" but that is not at all substantiated. I recently read an article about this, and there is some debate over findings which seem to indicate Neanderthal was practicing 'spiritual' rituals. However, it is not known whether this was something they perhaps 'learned' and copied from homosapiens, and adopted as their species was dying out, or whether the evidence even suggests spiritual belief at all. In any event, Neanderthals were not AS spiritually connected as homosapiens. At least, not as far as we've currently discovered.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct! 

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology. 

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Sorry you don't understand the difference between Micro and Macro. Let me help Micro are small changes within a species Macro leads to different species like you see on the family tree according to evolutionists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



More spiritual evidence.

Episode 67 - Full Episode: My Ghost Story Full Episodes and Videos - Biography.com


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You don't possess a degree in science dummy but I do. Why do you continue with this Charade you moron ?


----------



## G.T. (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*



Oh. So by "definitive proof" you meant "inconclusive faith."


----------



## newpolitics (May 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*



A conclusion does not mean certain, or even true, so your point here is a non-sequitur. In scientific epistemologies, it is understood that even deductively concluded propositions, which is requisite for forming a theory, is always allowed to be falsified, hence is never  certain. Therefore, scientific "conclusions" certainly exist. The fact that science is never certain doesn't change this.


----------



## S.J. (May 14, 2013)

One thing is for sure.  No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind.  I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power, and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise.  And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AAGAIN... Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing *FAITH!*
> ...



LMAO, dance little monkey, dance!


----------



## newpolitics (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That a nice little strawmen, you have there. I never said anything about science being certain. You are simply making this up.


----------



## newpolitics (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.


----------



## S.J. (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## newpolitics (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Keep on clapping at that strawman being laughed at. He's probably really upset.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!


----------



## newpolitics (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!



A "conclusion" is not defined as having the attribute of certainty, so your ridicule and strawman have no basis in truth. Saying science doesn't make conclusions because science isn't certain, is simply a semantics error on your part. 

As far as the strawman, despite your misunderstaning of the meaning of "conclusion", Quote me where I said that scientific epistemology deals with certainty. Until then, try not to ridicule people when you are the imbecile making then mistake. 

Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: con·clu·sion 
Pronunciation: \k&#601;n-&#712;klü-zh&#601;n\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
Date: 14th century
1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism 2 : the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law 3 : an act or instance of concluding



Do you see "certainty" or a synonym anywhere in this definition?  




I dont. You're clueless as to what you are doing here.



As to your statement being valid or profound... thanks for the laughs.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!
> ...



Science does not conclude or "conclude."


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

*"Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!"* _~Boss_ 

Hmm.... the word "certain" isn't in there anywhere.


----------



## newpolitics (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I deserve better than you.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

"The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
*Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion *
Communicate Your Results"



I am going to walk away now and hope you don't follow me.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You will note that the "conclusion" comes at the end of practicing science. Which is precisely what I said... once you have concluded, you have stopped practicing science. Do you see any more science happening after "conclusion" above? I don't. 

Thanks for reaffirming yet another of my brilliant points. You're on a roll tonight! 

*"Whenever you have proclaimed something to be conclusive, you have stopped practicing Science and begun practicing FAITH!"* _~Boss _


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your futile attempts to *"redefine"* the terms to suit your religious agenda are going nowhere.



> Definitive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> Definition of *DEFINITIVE*
> ...



*NOTHING* that you have posted is "definitive".



> Proof - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Definition of *PROOF*
> 
> ...



You have provided *no proof or evidence* whatsoever. 

Instead you attempt to weasel and squirm around your own canards by trying to invent your own personal "meanings" to universally accepted definitions. By doing this endlessly *YOU* now resemble *Humpty Dumpty*.







*'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean  neither more nor less.'*

Have a nice day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ok here is another problem with the experiment. Miller and Urey Hypothesized that the environment did not contain raw oxygen How did they know what the environment was like that long ago ? the reason why they included an oxygen free environment was because they knew these molecules could not form with the presence of raw oxygen.

You're also ignoring the fact that it does not happen naturally in nature and this was done through intelligent human beings. You're also ignoring the presence of both amino acids being present and how would only left handed amino acids bond in the right sequence to produce proteins.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



A conclusion does not mean you interpreted the evidence accurately.


----------



## edthecynic (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


They knew what the early atmosphere was like because scientists are not stupid and can figure things out. The early Earth was very volcanic and the lava spewed into the atmosphere would trap some of the atmosphere as a result. These ancient lava rocks can be dated and the oldest ones were analyzed for what the atmosphere was like at the time, and they found there was no free oxygen. Gases produced were similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane). No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases).


----------



## edthecynic (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


A virus is neither a living nor nonliving organism. I contains properties of both, for example a living organism can reproduce itself and a virus cannot. It is a transition organism between living and nonliving organisms. You know the transition organism that dishonest creationists say doesn't exist. So to be a creationist you have to believe a virus does not exist.


----------



## edthecynic (May 15, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Exactly, every living organism is made of molecules that form naturally on Earth, there are no "designer" molecules in any living organism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



They know what the early atmosphere was like because they are not stupid what the heck kind of response was that lol ? no one said they were stupid but it is just speculation that is all it is. They can't prove what the atmosphere was like billions of years ago. But you to missed the point the tests were done from the standpoint of intelligence not natural happenings.

I did not touch on the many things that was not produced in the tests like molecular machines and DNA. Talk about requiring faith to believe such a fairytale.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Viruses can reproduce themselves they just need a host organism to inject their DNA in to. That is merely conjecture suggesting a virus is a transitional organism. A virus is not a living organism at anytime. I am a creationist and viruses exist no doubt you are making a dishonest claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you were the least bit honest you would admit how I shot holes in your belief of the Miller and Urey experiment and they were not small holes they were huge gaping holes.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


nice, but overly wordy and unnecessary rant ...I need no science lessons from non scientists.

to answer the question Ywc has never been correct or accurate in science based discussions about evolution or origin ....how could he be .
he believes the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


we've had this argument on the other thread, it was shit then and it's shit now and way off topic .


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



One more thing about viruses they are produced within a living organism not in the natural environment So I ask you what was your point ?


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bahahahahahahahahahahaha! 
you did know that show is not fact based and is for entertainment only.
most all of the "ghost" footage has been doctored and "enhanced" all of the EVP'S are too.
that alone destroys any value the "evidence might have had.
again you've proven my point.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And to think you still don't get it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



All forms of science are entertainment to some.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no, I hold three degrees and science is a major part of them.



ah ha charade you are, Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh, 
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
When you're down in the pig mine.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Bus stop rat bag, ha ha charade you are.
You fucked up old hag, ha ha charade you are.
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass.
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost worth a quick grin.
You like the feel of steel,
You're hot stuff with a hatpin,
And good fun with a hand gun.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Hey you, Whitehouse,
Ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse,
Ha ha charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street.
You're nearly a real treat,
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
.....! .....! .....! .....!
You gotta stem the evil tide,
And keep it all on the inside.
Mary you're nearly a treat,
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> One thing is for sure.  No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind.  I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power, and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise.  And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.


aye and there's the rub!


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!


what? your statement's only validity is that it's yours.. nothing more.
profound ??! like a fart in a crowded elevator is profound.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> One thing is for sure.  No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind. * I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power,* and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise.  And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.



As an Atheist I will defend your right to believe in that "higher power". Will you defend my right to not have your belief imposed on me?


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


so living organisms are NOT part the natural environment? 
that statement wreaks of ignorance and pseudoscience.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


only in your dreams...


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


here's your ass... 
that program is not science it's has a little pseudoscience in it to fool asshats like you in to thinking it's substantial...
remember I'm in that biz


----------



## edthecynic (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Talk about stubbornly ignoring the facts. After the method used to determine the early atmosphere of the Earth was explained to you, you still claim scientists are too stupid to figure such things out.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Daws did you misunderstand why a living organism can't be produced in the natural environment that Ed and I were discussing ?

Speaking of wreaking from ignorance 

Let me make this clear for you daws. The question is yes living organisms are part of the natural environment but how did they join the natural environment if they could not form in the natural environment ? now do you see the problem for naturalists ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I will start replying to you when you understand the subject being discussed.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


odd that they did in nature and it's no problem for naturalists, it's a false declarative.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the problem here is you don't understand the subject that you claim to know so much about.


btw YWC I can find no research or results that give any validity to this statement.."why a living organism can't be produced in the natural environment" YWC.
SO AS ALWAYS YOU MUST BE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How does this answer the question they knew that the early atmosphere did not contain  oxygen ?

Don't be rediculous,oxygen is throughout space. So you tell me how an atmosphere did not contain oxygen ?


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think there is any question that gods exist. The dispute is over the nature of that existence. I suspect that at some point, we'll come to accept them as creations of human societies and appreciate them without resorting to "supernatural" hand waving.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


not the way you wish it was...

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere 

The breathable air we enjoy today originated from tiny organisms, although the details remain lost in geologic time

 By David Biello  


It's hard to keep oxygen molecules around, despite the fact that it's the third-most abundant element in the universe, forged in the superhot, superdense core of stars. That's because oxygen wants to react; it can form compounds with nearly every other element on the periodic table. So how did Earth end up with an atmosphere made up of roughly 21 percent of the stuff?

 The answer is tiny organisms known as cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These microbes conduct photosynthesis: using sunshine, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates and, yes, oxygen. In fact, all the plants on Earth incorporate symbiotic cyanobacteria (known as chloroplasts) to do their photosynthesis for them down to this day.

 For some untold eons prior to the evolution of these cyanobacteria, during the Archean eon, more primitive microbes lived the real old-fashioned way: anaerobically. These ancient organismsand their "extremophile" descendants todaythrived in the absence of oxygen, relying on sulfate for their energy needs.

 But roughly 2.45 billion years ago, the isotopic ratio of sulfur transformed, indicating that for the first time oxygen was becoming a significant component of Earth's atmosphere, according to a 2000 paper in Science. At roughly the same time (and for eons thereafter), oxidized iron began to appear in ancient soils and bands of iron were deposited on the seafloor, a product of reactions with oxygen in the seawater.

 "What it looks like is that oxygen was first produced somewhere around 2.7 billion to 2.8 billon years ago. It took up residence in atmosphere around 2.45 billion years ago," says geochemist Dick Holland, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "It looks as if there's a significant time interval between the appearance of oxygen-producing organisms and the actual oxygenation of the atmosphere."

 So a date and a culprit can be fixed for what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation Event, but mysteries remain. What occurred 2.45 billion years ago that enabled cyanobacteria to take over? What were oxygen levels at that time? Why did it take another one billion yearsdubbed the "boring billion" by scientistsfor oxygen levels to rise high enough to enable the evolution of animals?

 Most important, how did the amount of atmospheric oxygen reach its present level? "It's not that easy why it should balance at 21 percent rather than 10 or 40 percent," notes geoscientist James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University. "We don't understand the modern oxygen control system that well."

 Climate, volcanism, plate tectonics all played a key role in regulating the oxygen level during various time periods. Yet no one has come up with a rock-solid test to determine the precise oxygen content of the atmosphere at any given time from the geologic record. But one thing is clearthe origins of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere derive from one thing: life.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth&apos;s Atmosphere: Scientific American


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Looking For Spiritual Evidence In A Physical World

Posted by  illusion , 29 April 2013 · 144 views 


As a Christian, it never bothered me that much that there wasn't evidence of anything spiritual. When anyone would challenge me and and ask for evidence of a soul, angels demons, or even God himself. I'd argue back that all those things exist in spirit, not in the physical world. So, of course, you can't have physical evidence of something spiritual. The problem of this line of reasoning is that it leaves anything "spirit" in a category of being unable to effect the physical world. If that is true, if anything spirit is unable to effect the physical, than it's equivalent to not being there at all. For example, imagine a creature that exists only as spirit. This creature cannot affect the physical world in any way. For the sake of argument this creature truly does exist. What could this creature do or what experiment could be performed to demonstrate that this creature exists? In the end, if there are no ways to detect this creature in any way, then from our perspective as living in a physical world there is no discernible difference between that creature existing or not existing.

But, that's not the claim of Christianity. Not only is the claim that spiritual beings exist, but that they protect you (as in guarding angles), they can attack you (as in demons), they communicate with you, and ultimately guide you through your life. The claim really is that not only do these spirit being exists, but that they control what happens in the physical world everyday. If this is true, then we should be able to collect data that demonstrates, at the very least, that there are forces at work that can not be accounted for by ordinary means.

In astro-physics right now there is a determined effort to explain a force that for now is simply being called "dark energy". What we can determine is that the gravitational forces that we are aware of are unable to explain the effects of distant galaxies What's even more puzzling is that this unknown force has a greater effect on these galaxies than the forces that we can account for. We don't have to be able to explain fully what's causing these effects to realize that something is happening that we can't account for and needs further investigation. It's something like this, that I believe should be present in everyday circumstances if spirit forces are at work. I'm not saying it would conclusively show that supernatural is present, but it would give credibility to the supernatural claims.

One effect that I am aware of that has been scientifically investigated are those of prayer. A list of these prayer studies are at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia....rcessory_prayer

At the end of the article there is a final analysis. The analysis of all the prayer studies seem to be that either there was no effect, or that the effect was so small that it could be accounted for due to errors in collecting data or poor study controls.

A counter argument that has been given to me is that, there are studies that do show an effect.

http://www.m.webmd.c...er-heal?page=1

These studies showed that the persons religion (or even lack of religion) was inconsequentual. What was truly being tested was a form of meditation, and the positive result was what you would expect from placebo, or having a positive attitude. Certainly God should be able to perform better than placebo, and that still leaves the best objective scientific studies showing no positive results. Objective evidence is the only tool that we have to determine true causes, as opposed to someone's personal belief of what is causing something to happen.

I think it's possible to perform scientific tests to look for spiritual effects. And, I think that if there is anything spiritual out there, we should be able find ways in which we can detect those effects.  

Looking For Spiritual Evidence In A Physical World - Ex-Christian.Net


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> As I mentioned earlier, I don't think there is any question that gods exist. The dispute is over the nature of that existence. I suspect that at some point, we'll come to accept them as creations of human societies and appreciate them without resorting to "supernatural" hand waving.



That does not answer the question;

As an Atheist I will defend your right to believe in that "higher power". Will you defend my right to not have your belief imposed on me?


----------



## S.J. (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > One thing is for sure.  No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind. I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power, and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise.  And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.
> ...


Fine with me.  Just waiting for you atheists to to stop imposing YOUR non-provable beliefs on society.  It works both ways.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> no, I hold three degrees and science is a major part of them.



That's impossible, ed says scientists are not stupid, and you most definitely are. 

YWC has been schooling all of you on this, and all you can do is fire off your credentials, re-post the same debunked garbage, beat your chest some more, run away from his points as fast as possible, and support your own arguments with brilliance like "scientists aren't stupid!"


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Exactly, every living organism is made of molecules that form naturally on Earth, there are no "designer" molecules in any living organism.



You seem to be the one indicating a "designer" molecule, which miraculously created living organisms from non-living or 'inorganic' materials. Because, otherwise, this has not been explained.


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > As I mentioned earlier, I don't think there is any question that gods exist. The dispute is over the nature of that existence. I suspect that at some point, we'll come to accept them as creations of human societies and appreciate them without resorting to "supernatural" hand waving.
> ...



True. Nor was it meant to.



> As an Atheist I will defend your right to believe in that "higher power". Will you defend my right to not have your belief imposed on me?



Sure. Wouldn't have it any other way. What are you getting at?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You negated your own response.


----------



## S.J. (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## numan (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > As an Atheist I will defend your right to believe in that "higher power". Will you defend my right to not have your belief imposed on me?
> ...


Count me out of this love-fest of toleration.

We atheists have a lot of religious fanatics to swindle, torture and burn alive before we catch up to what the "Christians" have done to us.

I won't be satisfied until we are even-steven.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 15, 2013)

numan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Exactly what I thought.


----------



## edthecynic (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Again, when the lava from the early Earth is spewed into the air it traps some of that early atmosphere before it hardens. Those lava rocks can be dated. The rocks from the time of the formation of the Earth are then ground down in the laboratory and the released gasses are collected and analyzed. From that analysis the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth at the age of the rocks can be determined. In the gasses that were trapped by the oldest rocks there was no free oxygen.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > no, I hold three degrees and science is a major part of them.
> ...


no it more then possible it's fact.
thanks for proving you suffer from the same delusional thinking that YWC does.
I never said scientists aren't stupid....don't know or care who did.
you also have the same propensity for making false accusations he does.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


that numan is right ?


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

numan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


you almost make me ashamed to be an atheist (almost)


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



That numan just gave away your motive. This debate is not about science or spiritual existence, or objective evaluation, it's about Christian haters, doing whatever they can to attack Christian believers. This is why I continue to have to rescue the thread from people trying to turn my argument into a theological debate. This is why religion continues to be conflated with spirituality. 

You people are so filled with hate and anger toward Christians, you have literally bigoted yourselves from science, and ironically, have begun to practice a faith-based belief.


----------



## Unkotare (May 15, 2013)

Has anyone mentioned the watchmaker yet?


----------



## numan (May 15, 2013)

'

No, they haven't even gotten to the Ontological Argument, which is much more classy.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


No, that numan is intolerant and hateful.  I find that to be the case with most atheists.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 15, 2013)

numan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Needless to say your tongue-in-cheek response went over the Believers heads. They all took you literally and are feeling victimized again. What a bunch of self-righteous babies. As far as the attempt to level the playing field went that never even made it beyond the first post either. They must all have kindergarten level EQ's.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...




weren't those the same people that crucified JC ? - followers of the culprit Bible.

payback is not a souly Atheist affair, as for the Religious it is a matter for the destruction of Evil.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 15, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Since religions have been around for millennia and never so much as made a dent in "evil" isn't it about time you tried something different? After all isn't the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results". Perhaps religion is the root of all evil and you are merely feeding the beast instead of destroying it. Just saying!


----------



## numan (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Yes, needless to say. Americans are some of the most humorless, stodgy, literal-minded, tone-deaf people in the world -- as this short video amply demonstrates :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYUbVa7L7w]*Rick Mercer talks with Americans*[/ame]

Could there be clearer proof that television-watching fries people's brains? Or perhaps I should say that America, in general, fries brains.
You're right up there with the stars of this film, S.J.!!
.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


another classic false assumption I don't hate Christians, but if you are saying you represent non fringe Christianity then you are lying.
also ass hat Numan does not in any way speak for me.
it's also a false and bigoted assumption that so called haters are attacking believers physically or metaphorically...the reverse is true.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Has anyone mentioned the watchmaker yet?


the blind watchmaker ploy,  I expect ywc will whip it out next time his ass is in a crack.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


guess mirrors aren't big with Christians or glass houses.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


sure it is..
as to the crucifiers of Jesus his own people were not atheists...his god was and is their god.
the romans were the executioners they had their own gods, not atheists either.



spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## Unkotare (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> religions have been around for millennia and never so much as made a dent in "evil"





No?


----------



## Unkotare (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone mentioned the watchmaker yet?
> ...




So then I take it none of the atheists have addressed it?


----------



## daws101 (May 15, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


what's the point?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



God warned us that evil would exist until the final judgement. How bout atheists do they have an answer on how to deal with all the evil in the world ?


----------



## numan (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> God warned us that evil would exist until the final judgement. How bout atheists do they have an answer on how to deal with all the evil in the world ?


Getting rid of religious superstition would be a firm step forward.
.


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Yeah. I propose fighting evil and defending the innocent. Certainly not sitting around on my ass waiting for 'final judgment'.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





*as to the crucifiers of Jesus his own people were not atheists*

are you suggesting it was the Atheists who crucified JC ?  - if numan implies bringing the crucifiers to Justice, the Religious will join his crusade.



*spiritual evidence is non existent.*

no blade of grass has been the same for 750 million years and never will nor any accompaniment of the Garden for all eternity.


----------



## Unkotare (May 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx8LAFSY3Ws]That Detective Is The Right Question - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare (May 15, 2013)

Atheists can be unintentionally hilarious at times!


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Hey asshole, this thread isn't about religion.  How about sticking to the subject?  Oh, that's right, you can't win that argument so you have to derail the thread.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Perhaps if you actually read the posts instead of just emoting you might have realized that it was your fellow believer who "derailed the thread" by raising the topic of religion and evil. Have a nice day explaining to him/her why you were so self righteously crude about them.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > God warned us that evil would exist until the final judgement. How bout atheists do they have an answer on how to deal with all the evil in the world ?
> ...



Explain ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Hmm sounds familiar and what atheists were afraid of religious people doing. Of course we have to live our lives until that day comes and deal with evil. God even tells us how to deal with evil but man does not listen.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I stand corrected it was not you that brought up evil.


----------



## dblack (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's true. I can't hear the voices in your head.


----------



## edthecynic (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


And he should know since he is powerless against it.

Atheists know the God created evil cannot be defeated, but it can be resisted.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: *I* make peace, and *create evil*: I the LORD do all these things.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You must read the bible in context to get to the true meaning.

Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Read the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Your problem you only quote from the KJV.


Isa 45:7

(BBE)  I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things. 

(CEV)  I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the LORD, do all of this.


----------



## dblack (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Did that. No voices.


----------



## edthecynic (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There are over 3,000 versions of the bible, so not only do you have to find the right religion, you have to find the right bible for that religion. The KJV claims to be the INSPIRED word of God, so now we know the KJV is a lie.
Thank you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You don't hear voices on here either what is your point if you have one ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.


----------



## edthecynic (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Evil comes from sin, sin came from a choice to obey God or disobey God. God gave us all the right to choose our path. Freewill was given to humans and Angels both chose to sin and disobey our creator.

I guess God could have not granted freewill but then we would have not obeyed him because we loved him and wished to do his will. Would you want a wife or husband just because you wanted them or would you rather have that husband and or wife that married you because they truly loved you ?


----------



## numan (May 16, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Has anyone mentioned the watchmaker yet?


If no one else will do it, I will -- but, as I said before, the Ontological Argument is much more elegant.

The Watchmaker Argument  is more correctly called the "Argument from Design."

The "watchmaker" version of it came from an 18th century divine by the name of Paley, so it often called Paley's Argument.

Paley wrote that if you found a perfectly functioning watch on the ground in a field, you would never imagine that such an intricate, cleverly designed machine could have arisen by "accident" -- by the blind concatenation of chance events. It would go against all probability to imagine that it was not the creation of an intelligent, conscious watchmaker -- enter God as the watchmaker.

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

Before Darwin, the awe inspiring subtleties and harmonies of the world around us were considered a proof of God's existence. Now we see how many of these harmonies could have arisen by blind, dumb chance.

Ironically, at this very moment, the incredible balance and harmony of the fundamental constants of physics have made some very hard-headed physicists wonder if they were not the product of a Divine Mind at the instant of Creation!

The incredible fine tuning of the fundamental constants of physics, which were in force in the first few instants of the Big Bang, if they had been ever so slightly different, would have made the universe as we know it impossible.

Of course, the fundamental constants might have arisen on a scale vastly greater than our observable universe, in unimaginable circumstances, before our "little" universe was born. Perhaps they arose by blind, dumb chance, by some form of evolution analogous to Darwinian evolution.

It is a nice point of philosophy whether, on such cyclopean and unimaginable scales, there is a real difference between a Divine Mind and blind, dumb evolution.
.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2013)

> The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.



I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared. 

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate. 

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of _WHY?_ What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.) 

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know.  By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.


----------



## Mom (May 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


getting rid of all the willfully ignorant zealots would be a good start ..


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


ah no (snicker) 
2. tell that to my lawn...


----------



## numan (May 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time....The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this....


Well, well, well !! The Creationist vampire is finally revealed behind the cloak of the disinterested philosophic observer !!

Moreover, the crudity of your scientific knowledge is make clear.

No one who has carefully examined the progression from dinosaurs to birds, or has seen the clear evolution from Australopithecines to _Homo erectus_, then to _Homo Heidelbergensis_, then to both Neanderthals and _Homo sapiens sapiens_, would make such foolish statements.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

Mom said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.
> ...


And the reverse holds true for Evolutionists.  You reject creationism because you can't explain it with physical science.  That's why you came up with the Big Bang theory, which is no more provable than one species slowly morphing into another.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is it just me or does owning 13 different "versions" (odd choice of words ) for other than monetary or historical interest seem kinda extreme..?


----------



## numan (May 16, 2013)

'

And once again, the ignorant accuse the wise of folly.

S.J., can't you find some other territory where angels fear to tread?
.


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> And once again, the ignorant accuse the wise of folly.
> 
> ...


Thinking that one animal transformed into another is what you consider wisdom?  I call it desperately searching for an explanation of something for which you haven't a clue.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems

by Donald Morgan

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.&#8212;more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods, and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. When an author has been named that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors; the present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And&#8212;in spite of what the Gospel authors say&#8212;biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of books which reflect multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories&#8212;stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional&#8212;were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

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

But is the Bible, nevertheless, the work of God? Is it a valid guidebook? How can we know?

If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect&#8212;accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout&#8212;as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.

Fundamentalists, in fact, hold this to be true. Using a circular argument, they say that because the Bible is without error or inconsistency, it must be the work of God, and because it is the work of God, it must be without error or inconsistency. It seems not to matter which proposition comes first, the other is thought to follow.

Notwithstanding the fundamentalist viewpoint, however, the Bible does contain a number of real problems. And some of these problems are absolutely fatal to its credibility.

Many passages relate God-ordained atrocities; such passages are unworthy of the Christian God. Some biblical precepts are both unreasonable and unlikely since they are in obvious disagreement with common sense as well as the qualities of character which are attributed to God. Some biblical statements are absurd in that they represent very primitive beliefs. The believability of many biblical stories&#8212;stories that are crucial to Christianity&#8212;are discredited by numerous inconsistencies. The picture is further complicated by the many different and conflicting interpretations that are often given to a specific passage by sincere, well-intentioned believers.

While Biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical problem that can be uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book.

The evidence which follows, taken from the Bible itself, is but a small portion of that which exists. This evidence demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the literal, complete, inerrant and perfect work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God. It also demonstrates that the Bible is not especially useful even as a guidebook. In addition, because the Bible reflects every important belief of traditional Christianity&#8212;the foundation of Christianity itself rests on shaky ground.

Note to reader: this Introduction is but one of eight chapters which originally made up a single, unified document. For purposes of increased compatibility with the Internet, the document was broken into eight separate files. The evidence referred to above can be found in the related files using the links below.
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 16, 2013)

Mom said:


> As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.



Here is what I find fascinating... According to the most widely accepted scientific theory, it is impossible to know what occured prior to the Big Bang... not merely that scientists do not know what happened, but it is impossible for us  to know what happened.

Of course, other theories are postulated, such as the one by Hawking who asserts that asking what happened before the big bang is akin to asking what is south of the South Pole.  His reasoning being that both time and space began with the Big Bang and so it makes no sense to speak of "before the big bang".  

Theories gaining ascendancy such a string or mesh theory assert the collision of such strings or membranes as the cause of the big bang.

Others assert a theory involving a living evolutionary universe which is spawned by black holes and favors the creation of universes which provide for the maximun number of bilack holes.  The idea being that in an absolute void, matter appears spontaneously and continously.  However such matter is equally destroyed because matter and anti matter are created equally.  On the edge of a black hole some of that spontaneously created matter would fall into the black hole allowing some matter to survive its creation.  Eventually, such a black hole will reach critical mass and be destroyed in a big bang creating a new universe.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


Got any actual proof that evolution is not correct..?
I don't mean subjective fairy tales and pseudoscience..


----------



## numan (May 16, 2013)

'
*How do we know there is a God? --- The Bible tells us so.
How do we know the Bible is true? --- Because it is the Word of God.* · · 

Don't forget all the historical errors that occur in the Bible.

One of my favorite is that in the Book of Genesis, the camels of Abraham are described.

The mythical Abraham was supposed to have lived sometime between 2000 BC and 1500 BC.

Camels were not domesticated until around 1000 BC.

Clearly, that passage was written well after 1000 BC by someone who did not know when camels were domesticated.

I mentioned this to a fundamentalist once, and without missing a beat, he said, "Well, that shows how much more advanced Abraham was than anyone else of his time!"

What can you do with such mental zombies?
.


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


The burden of proof is on you.  By your standard, you should have to prove God doesn't exist.  Can you do that?


----------



## Mom (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

Mom said:


> I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...


And I reject evolution because I see zero proof that life just happened through random chance, or that non-living organisms suddenly became living organisms with intelligence and reason, without an intelligent force involved.


----------



## Kondor3 (May 16, 2013)

If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they _created the laws of physics_ prior to creating the universe, _and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe_ - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

Mom said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.
> ...



Not true,micro-evolution is a fact and can't be denied you need to get your facts straight. I prefer the term micro-adaptations because it more accurately describes what is really happening.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


 wait a sec here, you have no idea what my standard is !
besides, where did I mention god? 
but to answer, that if god existed then there would be easily recognizable features in everything that could not be explained any other way.
if you ever find that then you maybe on to something.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



No he can't do that nor can the brightest minds of science. He could not deal with the origins question he is to dense to understand what he believes is based in faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

Mom said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Of course you reject the evidence for design you believe in miracles like so many  of your brethren.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the link you posted only confirms what edthecynic said about cherry picking.
it does not prove you to be correct.. using your own twisted logic, ALL copies of the bible are perfect because it's the word of god.
one cannot be more correct then all the others or it defeats the purpose of the perfect book. 
asshat.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...
> ...


my dad can beat up your dad !
talk about a juvenile response !


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


false declaration based on a false premise!


----------



## numan (May 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they _created the laws of physics_ prior to creating the universe, _and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe_ - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...


Or maybe not.

If I were an infinite God, I think I would have more important things to do.
.


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they _created the laws of physics_ prior to creating the universe, _and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe_ - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...


Finally, someone with an open mind.  Science answers a lot of questions, but by rejecting the possibility of an intelligent force that doesn't fit into their narrow world of physical matter, they end up with some pretty ridiculous explanations of how things happened.
If science was so "dead on", there should be no unanswered questions.  The simple and obvious fact that there is order in the universe should be enough to convince anyone that there is something or someone in charge who is far more intelligent than we are, but the self-proclaimed intellectuals (like the ones on this board) can't bring themselves to consider the possibility there could be something beyond their comprehension.  Their narcissism keeps them ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

Man I am glad I put that nut on Ignore so I don't have to respond to his venom filled posts based on ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


way to intentionally misinterpret there YWC..
MOM never said design she said "big things"
besides there is no mention of god designing anything just creating stuff of to put it another way, he proofed everything in to existence....nothing else 
so inferring design is a form of creating god in your own image....


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...


Can't argue the merits so you have to make it personal.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

numan said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they _created the laws of physics_ prior to creating the universe, _and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe_ - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...
> ...



Everything has been dealt with now it's just waiting on the right time to finish it.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they _created the laws of physics_ prior to creating the universe, _and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe_ - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...
> ...


really! there are no shoulds in science ,that fact alone make your whole statement a steaming pile of wishful conjecture.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


wrong! just pointing out the childish nature of your response.
if you took it personally, I must be correct.


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


You haven't been correct about anything yet.


----------



## Kondor3 (May 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> "..._there are no shoulds in science_..."


Within the framework of things that cannot be seen or heard or felt... conjecture, speculation and imagination are the cornerstones of theoretical science... nothing can be theorized nor sought nor gauged nor assessed nor proven nor disproven without the ability to conjure it first in the imagination and then to speculate upon its nature in a collaborative manner until something firmer and more reliable comes to light.

There are _plenty_ of 'shoulds' in science.

Science is just another tool of Man, to articulate his perceptions of the measurable.

It is not the end-all-be-all Descriptor for Existence...

Merely a johnny-come-lately and strong Contender for that Honor.

Religion, Philosophy and Art are some of its strongest competitors and boast their own broad (and even older) hold upon the attention and affections of Humankind.

There is room enough for all - including hybrid explanations or beliefs.


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


how'd I know you'd say that!
in fact I've been right about everything..


----------



## daws101 (May 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > "..._there are no shoulds in science_..."
> ...


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


I'm sure you think you have.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time....The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this....
> ...



Well, I guess my problem is, I haven't observed this happen. I see you telling me we've examined this, carefully, but I am not seeing the proof it happened. I see we have found some really neat dinosaur bones, and some really interesting bird bones, but it's the "progression" part I don't see. There is no evidence to support cross-genus speciation. All evolution that we've ever examined, is within a genus. If we are to believe that every form of life emerged from a single cell, there had to be a time when cross-genus speciation was happening all the time, because we have billions of life forms now, and 95% of the various species are extinct. We see no sign whatsoever, in nature, of this happening now. We can't replicate this in a controlled lab environment, but in order for all life to emerge from a single cell, this had to happen and happen a lot. Now, I am not saying it didn't happen, but what do you suppose made it stop? Did Mother Nature get tired of creating new life forms? 

Let me set you straight again, I am not a Creationist, I have not argued a case for Creationism. But I do believe there is a valid argument for Intelligent Design, in fact, I think it's mighty illogical to "conclude" this isn't at least a possibility. You see, what you seem to be failing to comprehend here, is that I am keeping an open mind, and you have closed your mind. Where you have convinced yourself that evolution explains origin, I have not. I can accept Darwin's theories, and see where there is evidence to support them, but I don't believe his theories explain cross-genus speciation, and I don't believe you have explained it. 

I guess I don't have as much FAITH as you do, huh?


----------



## edthecynic (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.


----------



## S.J. (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I thought you were an atheist, Ed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Really ? Kjv was not the first translation so really you are now reduced to being foolish.


----------



## edthecynic (May 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


And you are reduced to only the original bible in its original languages is credible. All other bible translations are worthless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ed it's this simple God created everything that includes people that do evil. He did not create evil he created being's capable of doing evil. In other words commit sin. Did God create evil beings no he did not they chose to be evil the same as they did since the beginning.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The bible is now translated in every known language of man can you tell me why that is wrong ? No one has the original writings everything has been written down on manuscripts through the years.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The bible says God created evil, you can change the word evil to paper cut, but the fact remains that evil exists by the hand of God.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
&#8232;Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. &#8232;
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 
&#8232;Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (341270 B.C.)


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Mom said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.
> ...



I am not certain who you are referring to when you say "creationists" because this can cover a wide range of different views, not all of which "reject evolution." I personally know people who believe the universe was created by intelligent design, but also believe Darwin's theory of evolution. I know people who believe the universe was created by intelligent design, but do not believe in the Bible. I am a Spiritualist, I don't subscribe to the Bible or any other organized religion, but I do believe there is strong evidence of a spiritual entity, and I certainly think it's possible this entity could have intelligently designed and created the universe. Unless I see something that proves otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt, I will continue to believe this is a possibility. 

Now, I have to hand it to you Christian-bashers and God-haters, you don't fucking quit. You relentlessly try to turn any objective debate on this topic, into a theological quagmire, no matter how long it takes. And your response is indicative of what that is. Because when you can turn this into a theology debate, you can ridicule and mock Christians, and that's really what you're all about. You had literally rather abandon science and become closed-minded intolerants, just so you can bash on Christians. It is just too much to expect people like you to engage in a fair objective analysis of the evidence, as presented in the OP.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? 
- Unknown


----------



## dblack (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Somehow that reminds me of something my youngest son said, when he was seven or eight. We drove past a gaggle of Fred Phelps loons protesting on campus in Lawrence KS.... and my son read one of the signs out loud "God hates fags!!!". He thought for a moment then asked "But didn't God make fags?"


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As you well know the changes take place very slowly over many generations. And as you already admitted 95% of the various species are extinct, but there are a few of the in between species still around. Like plants that eat meat and animals that perform photosynthesis.  And then there is the Platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile  and has a snout and webbed feet of a duck. If that is not enough of a crossover species for you, nothing will ever do.


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


How the hell is that proof of cross-genus speciation?


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Exactly, for a group that can't have babies, they can only come from God.


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


For a minute there I thought you might have finally graduated high school but I can see from this comment that you're still a juvenile.  My mistake.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Those examples cross more than just genus and species, they cross KINGDOMS.
Get it?


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Some assholes have no sense of humor!


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


My last comment applies to this as well.


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I might have found that funny when I was in Jr. High.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



All you're showing is examples of species who share attributes with other species. 

The Earth is approximately 4 billion years old, according to science, with the first billion or so, spent cooling down enough to become habitable by life as we know it. So this leaves about a 3 billion year window in which every living thing that exists now or ever has existed, had to emerge. There are billions of life forms, and billions more that are no longer around, so we would need to be averaging at least a creature or two per year, popping into existence from something else. But you say this takes many generations... so the math simply doesn't add up. Especially considering, in all of modern times with science diligently observing, we've never seen this happen across genuses, even through many generations. 

Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


YOUR "math" doesn't add up. There is nothing that says evolution takes place on a regular schedule, except in your non-existent metaphysical spiritual imagination.

P.S. You forgot the mammal's DNA in the Platypus!


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, YOUR math doesn't add up, buddy. Billions of life forms, billions more who are no longer with us... no signs of any kind of cross-genus speciation happening today, or in recent history. No real evidence to show it ever happened. We can't even duplicate your theory in a lab... (so much for falsifiable evidence.)  You explain that it takes "many generations" for even the slightest changes, but we don't have that much time to work with, unless you think the Earth is like 100 trillion years old, or something. Even if that is the case, you've not explained what happened, why we no longer see this miraculous cross-genus speciation happening? Did nature get bored? 

You see, if what you theorize (with no basis) were true, I would expect to see a new species to emerge from an existing species on a regular basis, or at least within the past 200-300 years, since we've been scientifically observing animals. But nadda! No trace, does not happen in nature, can't make it happen in a controlled lab environment, it doesn't work.

Doesn't matter about the DNA of a platypus, they aren't a reptile that turned into a duck, and they never will be.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



More of your profound ignorance on display? Evolution is the means by which species *ADAPT* to changing environments. So in order to witness evolution you need to look at environments that changed during that period. One example were moths during the early industrial revolution. Everything became covered with soot from coal burning plants which meant that light colored moths were now easily visible to their prey against the dark background. These moths died out while darker colored moths survived. If there was an environmental change that made moth wings a liability they would adapt to no longer have them. Then if another change meant that it was advantageous for them to be able to swim and breathe underwater those that adapted would survive while the originals died out. Eventually you would have small swimming insects that you would consider to be a completely different species to the original moths. It is doubtful that you will accept any of these established facts because you have proven that you lack the necessary fundamental comprehension abilities. Have a nice day.


----------



## editec (May 17, 2013)

> Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.



Not, actually it's religions problem AND its saving grace.

You truly do not understand your own religion, lad.

Perhaps this phase might help you to remember what your FAITH really is..




> And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



God didn't make you an atheist you chose to be an atheist. Gays are gay because they made that choice there is nothing biological that produces a gay person. God does not hate the person he hates the sin. God gave us the ability to reproduce he is not directly creating each individual if he was you would be like Adam or Eve.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Fairytale! organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. You might point to small changes within a family that is how you get so many different breeds within a family but it never goes beyond that point. Cat is a Cat and Dog is a Dog a Human is a Human. Cross breeding and selective breeding are the most effective way's to produce a new breed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Some assholes shouldn't share their jokes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Whew 4 billion years for every species that ever existed that is a lot of adapting


----------



## dblack (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.



It's these sorts of mis-statements that make it hard to take the creationists' arguments seriously at all. You need at least a cursory understanding of what you're critiquing, assuming your intent here is to make a serious critique of evolution. If so, you need to so some reading.



> ... no signs of any kind of cross-genus speciation happening today, or in recent history. No real evidence to show it ever happened. We can't even duplicate your theory in a lab.



Really? None at all? Is your google broken? Let me google that for you


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.
> ...



Well since there is no viable mechanism cross breeding is all that is left.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.
> ...



If your side didn't think creationists arguments are not legitimate and should not be taken serious  your side would not see them (creationists) as a threat.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You would be stupid enough to expect the moon to be made of green cheese too. Just because you expect something does not mean it is a reality, and in your case it probably isn't.

They actually are finding new species all the time, whose to say they just appeared or have been around forever and just now are discovered.

new species discovered - Google Search

new genus discovered - Google Search


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How do you know these so called new species did not exist all along ?

14 Extinct Animals That Were Rediscovered


----------



## amrchaos (May 17, 2013)

Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?


----------



## numan (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.


If anyone thinks a platypus is a combination of a reptile and a duck, they are mindless, uneducated gibbering idiots.
.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



My ignorance? I beg to differ. Here, you apparently think that moths changing colors is an example of cross-genus speciation! Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses? 

I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.
> ...



NOTHING... NADDA!  You presented a google search which basically confirms what I said. ALL evolution takes place within a genus. A new "species" may emerge, but it is not of a different genus or biological classification, and this is what needs to be proven, in order to prove evolution has anything to do with origin. Not only does that need to be clearly established, but you also need to explain why this doesn't happen anymore, and we can't reproduce it in a lab. All I am seeing, all I continue to see, is you hurling "CREATIONIST" at me like an insult, and pretending you've answered my questions.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now if we could go into a lab and take a reptile's DNA and a duck's DNA, and make a Platypus from it, I might be willing to accept that something like this was possible in nature, but the fact is, we can't.
> ...



Hey, that was YOUR buddy, not mine! Talk to him! I was merely ridiculing an absurd example presented of supposed cross-genus speciation. I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


not at all, I can laugh at myself..a quality you invisible friend types lack..


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?



Probably the same reason we keep having to talk about religion.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


can you rationalize any harder! 
if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.
if not, the title of all mighty god  is bogus! 
funny how you asshats refashion the holy word every chance you get.
isn't that a sin?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


you should take your own advice..
or ironic  coming from the king of assholes.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> can you rationalize any harder!
> if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.
> if not, the title of all mighty god  is bogus!
> funny how you asshats refashion the holy word every chance you get.
> isn't that a sin?



Did light create darkness or did darkness create light?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?
> ...


because you can't have chocolate without coco..


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > can you rationalize any harder!
> ...


can't have one without the other....


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Right, but you didn't answer my question.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


yes I did ....


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Really? Tell that to all the people who make cheap Easter candy!


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, you didn't.  

Did darkness create light, or did light create darkness?


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


they already know that...imitation chocolate is not chocolate....you can believe it is ..


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


also humans have a reptilian component in our brain.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



A mammal is not a reptile, nor do mammals change into reptiles. A mammal may have a common attribute of a reptile, but it is still not a reptile. You are CLAIMING these are remnants from it's evolution, but you haven't proven that. You can't. Nor can you duplicate it in a lab, therefore, it is not falsifiable evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I love it when you spilt hairs.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You are the one who proclaimed chocolate can't exist without cocoa. I'm the one who proved that statement incorrect. 



daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nope, you didn't answer the question, you proclaimed that one can't exist without the other, which is already understood. 



daws101 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh there are TONS of examples of different species sharing attributes with other types of animals. How does this prove cross-genus speciation? You've not explained it. We see a pattern here with you, something is simply PROCLAIMED by you as FACT, and that's all we need, we're supposed to accept it on FAITH! 

...And you don't even wear a funny hat or speak Latin!


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.


----------



## numan (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...


And you can't have religion without cuckoo. · · 
.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


your first statement :You are the one who proclaimed chocolate can't exist without cocoa. I'm the one who proved that statement incorrect." -boss
Imation chocolate is NOT chocolate... it's a facsimile not the same ...
you proved nothing my statement stands. 

2 . " you didn't answer the question, you proclaimed that one can't exist without the other, which is already understood-boss"
wrong I did not proclaim I stated fact...
light and dark are inexorably intertwined they are not physically or conceptually separate.
 3. "How does this prove cross-genus speciation?"-boss
do you have  viable alternate evidence proving some other mean produced those attributes?
I proclaimed nothing as I wrongly assumed that the facts were self explanatory to anyone with two live brain cells...
I guess you have only one.


Synapsid


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Synapsids
Temporal range: Mississippian&#8212;Present, 320&#8211;0Ma 



Synapsids (Greek, 'fused arch'), synonymous with theropsids (Greek, 'beast-face'), are a group of animals that includes mammals and every animal more closely related to mammals than to other living amniotes.[1] They are easily separated from other amniotes by having a temporal fenestra, an opening low in the skull roof behind each eye, leaving a bony arch beneath each; this accounts for their name.[2] Primitive synapsids are usually called pelycosaurs; more advanced mammal-like ones, therapsids. The non-mammalian members are described as mammal-like reptiles in classical systematics;[3][4] they can also be called "stem mammals". Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes; the other is the sauropsids, a group that includes modern reptiles and birds. The distinctive temporal fenestra developed in the ancestral synapsid about 324 million years ago (mya), during the Late Carboniferous period.

Synapsids were the largest terrestrial vertebrates in the Permian period, 299 to 251 million years ago. As with almost all groups then extant, their numbers and variety were severely reduced by the Permian-Triassic extinction. Though some species survived into the Triassic period, archosaurs became the largest and most numerous land vertebrates in the course of this period. Few of the nonmammalian synapsids outlasted the Triassic, although survivors persisted into the Cretaceous. However, as a phylogenetic unit, they included the mammals as descendants, and in this sense synapsids are still very much a living group of vertebrates. After the Cretaceous&#8211;Paleogene extinction event, the synapsids (in the form of mammals) again became the largest land animals.

The only extant synapsids today are mammals; all others are believed to be extinct.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Funny stuff there daws... good thing you can laugh at yourself!


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, it is MOSTLY mammal. It does not have a mammal's reproductive system. It has a reptile's reproductive system. It is a crossover species between reptile and mammal.

Again it was pointed out to you that the change from one species to another was a very slow process over MANY generations. It doesn't happen all in one shot as you insist it must to be a crossover according to YOUR redefinition of a crossover species. The Platypus is one remnant of a long chain of crossover species between reptile and mammal that has managed to survive extinction.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Funny stuff there daws... good thing you can laugh at yourself!


judging from your completely predictable retort the I besides being funny my statements must also be correct.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


oPunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Wild speculation with nothing resembling evidence or proof.  This is a faith-based theory with less evidence than the existence of God.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

> do you have viable alternate evidence proving some other mean produced those attributes?



Hold on a second, is this now what passes for "scientific evaluation" these days? I don't need evidence to refute your wild-ass speculations. We don't just say, well, it must be because of this impossible thing happening that we can't replicate and see no evidence of, because we can't find another answer. That is practicing a faith, not science. Now there is nothing wrong with faith, but when we are debating science, our faith needs to be checked at the door, so that we can remain objective. 

You keep showing us evidence that things change over time, and I get that. I understand that species change and adapt, but they do not spawn entirely new genera! That simply does not happen in nature, and there is no evidence it ever happened, and we can't make it happen in a lab environment. You can throw out all kinds of examples of a species evolving into a more advanced form, but it remains the same genus. This simply does not explain the billions and billions of various genera which have populated the planet. To get from the single cell organism to billions and billions of various multi-cell organisms, you need to show me some evidence of how this happened, because so far, you haven't.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



You are showing your ignorance on the theory you hold dear. It is not a transitional animal. Look this is from your side. This is Daws 's favorite site because he does not know enough to debate the issue and this is the site he runs to when he don't know what to say which is often.


Creationism and the Platypus


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Daws is the biggest know it all dummy you will ever meet.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, it's 100% mammal, who is semi-aquatic. You've not proven "crossover" anything, you are SPECULATING. And I have not disputed that SPECIES can change over time... white moths can become black moths... white owls can become brown owls... etc. This is evolution within the genus, not cross-genus speciation. The main problem with you theory, as I pointed out, is time. If it takes MANY generations for the slightest change, you don't have enough time to produce BILLIONS of life forms. Especially without ANY proof of cross-genus speciation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You revealed their ignorance once again I wonder if they will turn to google now ?


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Probably not, they are practicing a FAITH-BASED belief, so they will likely begin "speaking in tongues" soon.... that's where they start inundating us with latin words and science phrases, which they believe makes them smart. It's the source of their 'divine' power. 

These fanatics stopped practicing science a long time ago. I've been arguing with them for 15 years on the Internet, and it never changes. They are devoutly religious believers in their nonsense.


----------



## numan (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Synapsids
> Temporal range: MississippianPresent, 3200Ma
> Synapsids (Greek, 'fused arch'), synonymous with theropsids (Greek, 'beast-face'), are a group of animals that includes mammals and every animal more closely related to mammals than to other living amniotes.[1] They are easily separated from other amniotes by having a temporal fenestra, an opening low in the skull roof behind each eye, leaving a bony arch beneath each; this accounts for their name.[2] Primitive synapsids are usually called pelycosaurs; more advanced mammal-like ones, therapsids. The non-mammalian members are described as mammal-like reptiles in classical systematics;[3][4] they can also be called "stem mammals". Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes; the other is the sauropsids, a group that includes modern reptiles and birds. The distinctive temporal fenestra developed in the ancestral synapsid about 324 million years ago (mya), during the Late Carboniferous period.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Daws, I was about to write something similar. You have saved me the trouble.

I wish the religious fanatics who scribble here would use the time they waste bickering in order to study some biology.

The mammal-like reptiles of the Permian and Triassic periods, like all other reptiles, have only one bone in their inner ear. All true mammals, both extant and extinct, have three bones in the inner ear. Two of the bones derive from two bones that were originally in the reptilian jaw. The steady migration of these two bones from the jaw to the inner ear is just one of the many, many proofs of Evolution.
.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That is the absolute truth.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Once again you make erroneous assumptions. 

*"Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments."*

Try READING what I actually posted instead of repeatedly projecting your own ignorance.



> Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses?
> 
> I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.



You admit that evolution works on a micro scale because there is clearly documented evidence for that happening. Macro evolution AKA the emergence of a different genus is merely the combination of micro evolution over time as environmental conditions change. 

Thank you for proving that you do in fact lack the basic comprehension abilities to understand this topic.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


ok show me some evidence other wise..


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> > do you have viable alternate evidence proving some other mean produced those attributes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I smell a dodge..
without evidence  to back up your claim of refutation it's just specious conjecture..


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


You made the claim, you provide the proof.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


From your link:

In summary, the features of the living platypus, and the evidence available from its scanty fossil record, are both consistent with the idea that it has evolved from primitive mammals which still had many reptilian characteristics.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


that's a lie shit head...
please present any proof you have that I've every used that site.
you tried to pull this same shit on the other thread and you got your ass handed to you.
and stop being such a pussy and have the balls to address me directly especially if you're talking out your ass like now.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


already have it's on you to prove it wrong.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


lol!
when you answer like that it smoking gun evidence that I'm right.


----------



## S.J. (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


You haven't proven anything, you made an assumption.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




*if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.*


does Evil have a spiritual existence of its own ... no, Evil does not exist - 


Life's decisions made within the physiological form are what determine the probability for its existence after the form expires.

this is made clear in the corrupt Bible - those who "create" evil will perish, those who conquer Evil will accomplish Remission and be given acceptance into the Everlasting.


the Everlasting is not the Definitive proof of God's existence - that is determined by the Life that inhabits it.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Synapsids
> ...


NOT near as stupid as these pompous ignorant slapdicks would like to believe I am..
gotta love their meltdowns when actual fact is presented.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


from your willfully ignorant pov I never will.
must suck to be you.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


might wanna back off on the Sunday morning evangelical programs


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I did read what you posted.  I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much. 



> > Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses?
> >
> > I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.
> 
> ...



You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

*Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.*
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem;* the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.*


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific* EVIDENCE *for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary *ADAPTION* to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.


----------



## amrchaos (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?
> ...



Well--I can see how religion and theology comes into the discussion, but why is there focus on science?

Science deals with the physical world.   We already have a pretty good ideal what that is.


I am still trying to figure out what this spiritual world is.  So, far it is not the physical world and it is not conceptual world--so what is it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 17, 2013)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



The believers were losing the "spiritual world" argument which is why they switched to attacking science. In essence there is no "spiritual world" at all. What we have are gaps in our scientific knowledge and mankind's ability to enter a "spiritual" state of mind. This mental state is really just a form of meditation. Given the complete and utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any deity the believers are attempting to claim that this state of mind is "evidence" of this mythical "spiritual world". So you were right on the money when you referred to it as a "conceptual world". It is just another figment of the imagination for those who need a "spiritual crutch" to help them limp through their lives.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. *SORRY!*


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific* EVIDENCE *for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary *ADAPTION* to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.



Let's save the personal insults and digs and focus on the debate, shall we? The fact that many varieties of life exist, does not constitute "evidence" that they must have come into existence the way you theorize. Sorry, that's circular reasoning. 

ADAPTATION is not being questioned. I fully understand that things adapt, there is no argument about this. You're supposed to be explaining billions and billions of very distinct and different life forms, which supposedly (according to you) came from a single cell. You argue that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes to occur within a species, and you point to examples of species who share attributes with species of another genus, but what you are FAILING to provide evidence for, is CROSS-GENUS speciation. Darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of FAITH.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?



There is not ANY peer reviewed scientific facts to support your concept of cross-genus speciation. *NONE! NADDA!* You can lie and claim there is, you can believe there is, but you can't show it to us because it doesn't exist. I think I understand Darwin and Evolution better than you, what you are claiming is not something espoused at all by Darwin. It's just flat out illogical bullshit, and you are trying to force it down our throats by intimidation and ridicule. Sorry, but that's not going to fly! EVER!


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific* EVIDENCE *for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary *ADAPTION* to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.
> ...


And yet you never fail to ignore your own advice.


> *The fact that many varieties of life exist, does not constitute "evidence" that they must have come into existence the way you theorize*. Sorry, that's circular reasoning.


Why do your persist in *IGNORING* the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record.


> ADAPTATION is not being questioned. I fully understand that things adapt, there is no argument about this. You're supposed to be explaining billions and billions of very distinct and different life forms, which supposedly (according to you) came from a single cell. You argue that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes to occur within a species, and you point to examples of species who share attributes with species of another genus, *but what you are FAILING to provide evidence for, is CROSS-GENUS speciation.*


Once again...the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record exists.


> Darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of FAITH.



Your failure to comprehend the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record does not negate Darwin or all of the other FACTS.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



DNA and fossil records do not support your theory, neither does Darwin. Things do adapt, species within a genus do evolve and new species do emerge. What doesn't happen, is cross-genus speciation. Some species do share attributes with other species from other genera, but this does not prove cross-genus speciation. We can't replicate this process in a lab environment where we control all the variables, but you claim this happened naturally. Not only do you claim this happened, but it had to happen quite often and rapidly, in order to produce billions of various genera in just a few billion years, and you admit that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes. Nothing in your theory is comporting with science or logic, it is mere speculation and assumption. 

There has never been ANY evidence to support cross-genus speciation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's not my source it is a pro evolutionary site they just showed you didn't know what you were talking about.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We don't attack science and you're dreaming.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I hold a degree in Molecular Biology will that suffice ? May I ask what you and your buddies background in Science are ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Can you be more specific ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

boss said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > boss said:
> ...



a+


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


he's also a proclaimer the very thing he accuses other of being...
also notice he never presents reference material.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/LEGQu3cm3CE]How Evolution Works 7: Speciation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.


----------



## daws101 (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


hallelujah brother! you seen de light...now can you contribute....


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Similarities does not prove ancestry.


----------



## edthecynic (May 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Exactly, similarities show a complete lack of any relationship whatsoever.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

> Exactly, similarities show a complete lack of any relationship whatsoever.



If similarities indicate relationship you must be at least 3/4 jackass.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I didn't say anything about god speaking, and I never said anything was impossible. Again, you are trying to cram your illogical theory down my throat by sheer ridicule and petulance. 

You have not shown or demonstrated cross-genus speciation. You have done nothing but speculate and demand your opinion be accepted. I've repeatedly shot down everything you've presented, and you can't refute my points, so now you and your jackwagon god-hating buddies are going to chortle back and forth like pubescent school girls at a slumber party.  

I have known dumb-as-brick religious zealots who were more open minded than you. You've totally abandoned science so you can practice a faith-based disbelief in god, and bash Christians. That's what this is ALL about, but you'll never admit it.


----------



## Hollie (May 18, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm afraid your knowledge of the biological sciences derives largely from such hacks as the Institute for Creation Research and similar charlatans. Your talking points are almost precisely paraphrased from the likes of Henry Morris.

Enlighten yourself.

CB910: New species


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Mr. Circular reasoning because you lack evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Oh that's right let's extrapolate from animals adapting and they do it to a point a new distinct genus was produced.

I wondered how long before hollie or daws would run off to her now favorite site lol.

Do you not understand new breeds or species whichever term you prefer are produced within a group or family but they never result lets say canines through adapting will never produce a non-canine got it. That is what the claim is with evolutionists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 18, 2013)

I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wow, TalkOrigins.org.... I wonder what kind of organization that is? I wonder what kind of propaganda they are committed to spewing? Certainly, with a name like that, they are presenting a fair and objective case! 

New species emerge all the time. They do not cross genera. Not only does it not happen in nature, we can't make it happen in a lab, working with sophisticated instruments and DNA.

You can have all the Darwin evolution you please, if you can't explain cross-genus speciation, you can't get to origin. The problem is, if you ever DO explain cross-genus speciation, you then have to explain why it totally stopped happening and we can't even replicate the process in a controlled lab environment. 

I am not familiar with Institute for Creation Research or Henry Morris, I haven't posted a link to their organization or copied and pasted from their website. All I did, was make a perfectly rational and valid point that you can't refute. Given the rationality and relative simpleness of the point, it doesn't surprise me that others may have also raised it. What blows me away, is all you people who profess an almost religious belief in science, totally abandoning science here.


----------



## newpolitics (May 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.



Well, you nor anyone else can have one. I can make can make one up for you, write a story about it, and put it in a book, and tell people about it and have them believe it, but that doesn't mean its true.

You've just confirmed that yours is an argument from ignorance, and that you can't stand an absence of explanation. To fill this epistemic vacuum, you throw in something, anything, to suit your intuitional needs. It is human weakness. We simply don't know. Deal with it.


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.



Darwin himself said, if you can show a system to be irreducibly complex, it could not have been the result of evolution. The human eye can not work without the sum of all parts. Take any one part of the eye away, and the system doesn't function. Darwin says there is no way this could have evolved, because evolution doesn't predict the future. Evolution has no way of knowing what parts of an eye need to evolve into existence for the eye to work. Evolutionists once suspected the human eye was an evolved stage of simple photometric cells, attached to an optic nerve, but upon further review, science finds that these systems are completely different from a human eye. The way the two different system work, is so dissimilar, it rules out any possibility the human eye evolved from photometric cells. 

Now this is real science stuff, things we know as intelligent people observing science. But how do the "god-haters" handle this scientific revelation? They mock and ridicule it. They pretend that science says something totally different and those of us who raise this point are nut cases who reject science. Unfortunately, they have that part backwards.


----------



## numan (May 18, 2013)

Boss said:


> New species emerge all the time. They do not cross genera. Not only does it not happen in nature, we can't make it happen in a lab, working with sophisticated instruments and DNA.
> 
> You can have all the Darwin evolution you please, if you can't explain cross-genus speciation, you can't get to origin.


What you are writing is really very silly.

Chordates ---> Vertebrates

Vertebrates ---> fish

Fish ---> amphibians

Amphibians ---> reptiles

Reptiles ---> mammals and dinosaurs

Dinosaurs ---> birds

_and, probably,_

Mammals ---> cybernetic organisms
.


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.
> ...



Human spiritual connection has existed in humans for all of our existence. This is hardly something that is "made up."


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > New species emerge all the time. They do not cross genera. Not only does it not happen in nature, we can't make it happen in a lab, working with sophisticated instruments and DNA.
> ...



Sorry but "---->" is not scientific proof of anything other than your mastery of the keyboard.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 18, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.
> ...



This is where logic comes into play was that not a point of argument you were making earlier ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.


What living thing is God?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.
> ...



Not sure what you're asking. God is a spirit but he can materialize.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 18, 2013)

the Garden is the Physical Presence and Proof of its Creator.





> Mammals ---> cybernetic organisms



the corruption of the Bible is surly matched by the disbelievers urbanization of nature.


----------



## edthecynic (May 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You just shot down Bossy.

God is not a living thing therefore life came from non-life if life came from God.


----------



## newpolitics (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Which argument? I made a bunch a logical refutations, perhaps a few arguments. Please be more specific.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?
> ...



*Your* profound ignorance and failure to comprehend are your problem and in no way refute the peer reviewed scientific* FACTS *in the fossil record and the DNA evidence. You screech and whine that there is no such evidence. Take a look at the following link;

Which embryo is human?



> Adult fish, chickens, dogs, and lizards don't look much like humans. So why do these embryos look so much alike? The basic design of all these animals is more similar than you might think.	 Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same. That's why scientist can learn about human development by studying other organisms--including zebrafish.
> 
> DNA and the Developing Embryo
> 
> ...



All of those embryos look similar because the DNA to generate a spine is common across all genera that have one. So the differences between a reptile and a human happens *AFTER* the genetic development of the spine (and all of the other common features like eyes, nerves, skin, organs, etc). This is* FACTUAL* reproducible scientific evidence. You have already conceded that minor genetic alterations have occurred over the last 2 centuries. The common early development in the embryo is evidence that over millions of years changes in the genetic sequence result in the variety of genera that are currently alive today. 

Your kneejerk reaction will be that a fish embryo can't become a chicken. The scientific reality is that if you take the fish genes and change them to those of a chicken in a laboratory it will become a chicken. While this has not yet been done but it is only a matter of time since genetic modification is already practical. All it takes is to know how many genetic steps in the evolutionary process occurred for a fish to become a chicken then they can be replicated in a laboratory. 

The only "illogical bullshit" is your endless denial of these scientific facts. You are lying when you alleged that you can "comprehend" this process because it is patently obvious that you have never taken the time to actually read about it and understand how it works. The change from one genus to another happens in very small incremental steps. Being an ignoramus you expect it to happen in just one huge change. That is NOT how evolution works. This is how we know that you are incapable of "comprehending" what you allege you are capable of doing. Instead you prefer your simplistic "god created genera" creationist nonsense because it fits into your religious agenda.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your tenuous grasp of the subject matter is revealed when you make ignorant statements of that nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



God feels emotions and everything we do but he has the ability to be a  spirit. If Boss believes as you say then we disagree but that is not how I took it. There are many different beliefs concerning the creator like and what he is and what his name is and his abilities. All our questions some day will be answered.

I believe God in his full glory is a spirit anytime he is gonna approach man I believe he is Jesus or before he took the name Jesus he was the Angel of the LORD.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You base your arguments on logic but you don't when it comes to the origins of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



What Boss stated was a fact.through small adaptations,selective breeding,and cross breeding we can produce new breeds or species but that is the only evidence we possess. with all the selective breeding and cross breeding you want to use you will never produce a new family or group. It's like breeding a horse and a donkey to get a mule. Mules are sterile and can't produce offspring to carry on that breed. The mule would die off if it were not for selective breeding and or cross breeding.

There is a genetic barrier ,you can breed members of the same group and not produce offspring. There is a genetic barrier there that evolutionists do not want to admit exists. It is absurd to think that all living organisms evolved from one cell even more absurd to believe that spontaneous generation produced many different groups.


After millions of observations we can safely say and be in agreement with the bible where it say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. The reason is simple when breeding takes place genetic information is being bread out not new information in that is why we see parents only reproducing what they are. That is also why we see more illnesses and shorter life spans and other problems with let's say like a pure breed of dog. The gene pool becomes smaller by breeding out genetic data and that is why a mutt will be healthier because they come from a much larger and diverse gene pool.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No, it was ignorance. The evidence for the diversification of genera is in the DNA. Your simplistic *assumption* that a single small genetic change will result in an entirely different genus is where you are making your mistake. A different genus emerges as a result of the combination of many genetic changes and can take millions of years. That scientific evidence exists in the DNA.


----------



## newpolitics (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't? How do you know?

We all base our arguments on logic. It's simply a matter of whether our inferences are valid and our premises sound.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



What you stated was merely conjecture. You're sticking to the bounds of the theory thinking it takes millions of years for this to take place. First off you do not have a viable mechanism that is the engine for this theory that is above reproach. If you're are a neo darwinism advocate, that is my specialty since I worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years.

Then you consider the evidence for punctuated equilibrium that flies in the face of your statement.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Angels are spirits too, so you are back to the physical coming from the nonphysical and life coming from non-life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Please correct me if I am wrong it would not be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How can you make the assertion the spiritual realm is non-life ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



A person should be able to detect design in nature and there is a lot of evidence that logically would infer design in nature. Purposeful design is hard to be mistaken on using logic.


----------



## newpolitics (May 19, 2013)

Well, I haven't made any claims that I, or anybody, can demonstrate abiogenesis. Not yet. I happen to believe this is the most plausible explanation, and believe it is likely what happened, but that is different than claiming it did happen or claiming I can demonstrate it. Also, just because scientists can not currently create life in a lab, doesn't mean it didn't happen  naturally. There is no logical connectivity there. However, there is considerable evidence to support the possibility of abiogenesis , such as the Miller-Urey Experiment, which, when improved upon and corrected for in later years, provided even stronger evidence that multiple amino acids were able to form on the proto-earth.

I don't agree with you, that it is "illogical" that abiogenesis happened. This is an incoherent statement, and commits the fallacy of reification (Meyers does as well), using an abstraction or an a priori model and placing it onto actual reality. Although reification is often use in science, it is not a fallacy, because models can be tested using predictions, and based on those predictions, can verify whether a model of reality (eg., The Standard Model) maps accurately to reality. In the case of Einstein, he used reification in predicting black holes using only theory. However, no one claimed black holes existed simply because of math. We had to actually find them first, and did, proving Einsteins math correct once again. In the case of Stephen Meyers, he creates a model he cant test, yet draws conclusions from about the real world simply using math, and calling it a "fact." This is a fallacy of reification, treating an abstraction such as math as if i were descriptive of something in the real world. 

Logic pertains to thoughts and reasoning, which require a mind. Abiogenesis is about something that would have happened outside of any mind. Put differently, you are making an a priori presupposition about something necessarily a posteriori. OR... You are making an induction from your mind (using math and a reification fallacy) and using that to put limits on the capabilities of the actual world. . I don't see this is as at all valid or demonstrative of any truth, but merely an opinion.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?



> Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.



The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Ok you're suggesting since they look so similar at a stage of reproduction they must be related. That is not just circular reasoning but conjecture. What you ignore how vastly different the genetic data is.

If you take the average difference between chimps DNA and humans DNA it is 5% and that is being generous I believe it's higher but we can take that up later if you like. The actual difference I am speaking of is out of 3 billion base pairs of DNA the difference is 150,000,000 base pairs that is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to become the norm in the population for a chimp to evolve a human.

Now we know how rare beneficial mutations are and we know that when a mutation does cause change it does more often cause harm. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and we can point to very few beneficial mutations. We are to believe that there must be many beneficial mutations not just between human and chimp but species that supposedly evolved in to something completely distinct.

Now if you wish to challenge me on mutations you name all the beneficial mutations and let's see if it even approaches the number for genetic disorders.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Most cells look alike hmm they must be related and will produce the same family of organism how ridiculous.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



One more thing, mutations are errors and there are Enzymes trying to correct these errors making it even harder for these errors to spread through the population and becoming the norm in the gene pool.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Obviously you know nothing about Histology. BTW, Histology also supports evolution.






Nerve cell






Red Blood cell






Smooth Muscle Cell


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You just admitted that all life came from the nonliving ground.
Thank you.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The fossil record simply does not demonstrate cross-genus speciation. Neither does DNA. The fact that early stage embryos look similar, also does not prove cross-genus speciation. So when are you going to present this irrefutable evidence you have claimed exists? 



> > Adult fish, chickens, dogs, and lizards don't look much like humans. So why do these embryos look so much alike? The basic design of all these animals is more similar than you might think.	 Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor *[THEORY]*, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same. That's why scientist can learn about human development by studying other organisms--including zebrafish.
> >
> > DNA and the Developing Embryo
> >
> ...



And NONE of it proves your theory of cross-genus speciation. If embryos with similar spinal development emerged, and then 'decided' what to be, you might have something approaching a valid theory. If, once in a blue moon, a duck embryo inadvertently produced something other than a duck, perhaps you would have a valid theory. If any living thing were able to reproduce embryos which resulted in a different genus, then you'd have a valid theory. As it stands, you don't. 



> You have already conceded that minor genetic alterations have occurred over the last 2 centuries. The common early development in the embryo is evidence that over millions of years changes in the genetic sequence result in the variety of genera that are currently alive today.



Early development being common is not proof of cross genus speciation. In order for a few genera to produce many genera, you must prove cross-genus speciation, and you haven't. Millions and billions of years can pass, and a duck will never produce anything other than a duck. 



> Your kneejerk reaction will be that a fish embryo can't become a chicken.



Is that a knee-jerk reaction? Or is that the truth and a fact? 



> The scientific reality *(NOT)* is that if you take the fish genes and change them to those of a chicken in a laboratory it will become a chicken. While this *has not yet been done* but it is only a matter of time since genetic modification is already practical. All it takes is to know how many genetic steps in the evolutionary process occurred for a fish to become a chicken then they can be replicated in a laboratory.



This is TOO funny! It's a "scientific reality" but this "has not yet been done?" Anyone see a logic problem with this statement? How can something that has never been done, be a reality? Oh... it's just a matter of time? All it takes is something so simple and easy, but it hasn't been done yet. I guess scientists must be spending too much time on message boards, arguing with morons? When you show me a chicken that was created using ONLY the genes and DNA of a duck, I will believe that such a thing is possible. 



> The only "illogical bullshit" is your endless denial of these scientific facts. You are lying when you alleged that you can "comprehend" this process because it is patently obvious that you have never taken the time to actually read about it and understand how it works.



I have not denied science or things that science predicts. It's fine to read, but when you read and interpret things to be "facts and reality" that "haven't yet been done" it's problematic, because you aren't comprehending basic logic. 



> The change from one genus to another happens in very small incremental steps. Being an ignoramus you expect it to happen in just one huge change. That is NOT how evolution works. This is how we know that you are incapable of "comprehending" what you allege you are capable of doing. Instead you prefer your simplistic "god created genera" creationist nonsense because it fits into your religious agenda.



There is no evidence it happened in one huge change OR over millions of years. Cross-genus speciation simply does not happen. Embryo similarity doesn't prove it happened, DNA doesn't prove it happened, fossil records do not prove it happened, genetic engineering doesn't prove it happened. Therefore, it simply is *NOT A REALITY!* 

You can mock and ridicule me for making this true statement, I don't care. I didn't say "god created genera" and I am not a religious person, we've already covered that. Here is yet another example of YOUR "religious faith" in science as your god. You firmly believe cross-genus speciation is a "scientific reality" and it simply isn't, and you have not proven it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So we are back to the origins question see how that works ? how did the first cell form with all the needed parts to reproduce itself then to form the diversity of all life ?

The bible makes a better argument then all the text books in school. God created each family group and we see small changes in each of those families and extrapolate because small changes happen within each family group not seeing that there are limits to adapting once an organism encounters an environment they can't adapt to, what happens to them ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



God is life.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your distortion of the scientific facts is 100% conjecture. You are alleging that entirely different sets of DNA are responsible for the development of spines, nerves, eyes, organs and everything else that fish, reptiles, birds and mammals all have in common. No wonder you believe in religious nonsense.



> What you ignore how vastly different the genetic data is.



Thank you for proving that you know less than nothing about "genetic data".



> *Human Genome Project*
> 
> Primer
> 
> ...



The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Only thing ridiculous is you pretending that you work in the field of genetic mutations.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thanks for ruining your own credibility on this topic.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

> The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.



That is really funny, since their *lead scientist* is a self-described Christian believer in God.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

> 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.



So we didn't come from monkeys, we actually came from pumpkins and cabbages! 

...And it's Creationists who are the nutters???


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.
> 
> 
> 
> That is really funny, since their *lead scientist* is a self-described Christian believer in God.



Your ignorance is out of date!


----------



## numan (May 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> > 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.
> 
> 
> So we didn't come from monkeys, we actually came from pumpkins and cabbages!
> ...


That is really a very stupid thing to write, Bossy Man.
.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


And what might those parts be?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Since you seem to know what I did for a living for 11 years what would you like to discuss concerning mutations ? we can speak on induced mutations and naturally occurring mutations. What organism would you suggest is best for this kind of research and why ? we can even get in to the numbers let's see if you are up to this debate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Admit it your background is limited you're beginning to bore me so let's get this rolling Genius.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.
> 
> 
> 
> That is really funny, since their *lead scientist* is a self-described Christian believer in God.



He could not comprehend the Genome project if he read the results which I am about to show.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> > 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is funny and while he is at it he should consult the DNA similarity between humans and the earthworm.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.
> ...



Your ignorance is not. what are you 16 years old or so ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You made that claim while displaying profound ignorance about both DNA and the Human Genome Project. You also claimed that your deity "created" all of the current species on earth. Debating scientific facts with you would be an exercise in futility.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Collins left the HG project 5 years ago but FACTS are ignored by religious believers like you and the OP.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.
> ...



For all the fruits and nuts in this thread.

Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men - 30 May 2002 - New Scientist


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ironic given that you just proved yourself wrong!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You can't put an accurate number on DNA similarity now because the Genome project  also found that all that junk DNA which once was the claim found that Junk DNA performs a function unless all the junk DNA is Identical the similarity between humans and other organisms will move us further away from chimps and many other organisms.

You called down the thunder and I challenge you to make your argument and let me destroy your story.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Listen buddy,I worked in the field many moons ago and our findings were no different from many before us like the famous Pierre Grasse.

Look up his quotes before you shoot your mouth off.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



I have stated all along DNA similarity proves nothing between humans and other organisms are you really this dense ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

Now answer my questions or move on son.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ironic considering that the current point is that it is a scientific *FACT* that all the different genera share so much* common DNA *in spite of religious believers like yourself insisting that evolution must spawn a new genus from a single DNA mutation.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.
> ...



Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



After becoming the first man to map the human genome. 

Imagine that? One of those "believers" heading your beloved HGP and upon successfully mapping the genome, proclaimed that we "today, discovered how god did it!" That must be a terrible embarrassment for you!


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




All life that we know of, is carbon-based. Does THAT mean everything evolved from a single-cell organism? All life requires water, does THAT mean we all evolved from cabbage?


----------



## MaryL (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.



OK, brilliant question, basic and to the point. Except there isn&#8217;t any proof how the universe pulled itself up by its bootstraps and created itself,  ya know, the ol' chicken or the egg conundrum. God always existed ... Why not ask why?  Where and why and how. We can&#8217;t ask these questions, RELIGION won&#8217;t tolerate such questions. Science asks these questions in other, unequivocal ways.  In elegant simple factual ways.  Religion doesn&#8217;t  want the answers, they always just ask empty questions  that  feed their believes.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 19, 2013)

If God is, She's way bigger than *ALL* of the ancient stories, let alone any one of them.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.



The roots to the tree of life are chemical reactions in a liquid ocean.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Why am I not surprised you have no answer?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.
> ...



Well I have to respectfully disagree with you . Amino acids are soluble in water they would dissolve and never be able to form proteins. No a cell could not form in a body of water and they could not form where oxygen is present they would decay just like any organism that dies and is exposed to oxygen.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well it is called homeostasis cells always break apart when they have the necessary parts For a cell to be viable it must contain a complete set of   DNA that is copied into RNA by the enzyme, RNA polymerase. Both RNA and DNA are nucleic acids, which use base pairs of nucleotides as a complementary language that can be converted back and forth from DNA to RNA by the action of the correct enzymes.

Do you believe in miracles or a designer ?


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's why life beginning as chemical reactions in a liquid ocean and growing from there makes perfect sense.  At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.

The Common Hand - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Life lucky enough to have the time to develop Sentience is the miracle... Evolution exclusive to planet Earth is the designer.

If Momma's little bastards have a Father, His name is 'Time'.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


Not possible if they can't bond to produce proteins and they have to bond in correct sequence. Makes no sense at all they would have been designed whole.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 19, 2013)

Simple answer.



If Momma's little bastards have a Father, His name is Time.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

> At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.



At least it fits the evidence? This sounds like you are approaching science backwards to me. Finding something you call "evidence" and creating a scenario to fit it, is not practicing science, it is practicing faith. 

Earlier in this thread, back on about page 3, I mentioned that it was interesting to note; among the dozens of theories of abiogenesis, one is the Clay Theory. A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and explored as a plausible illustration by several scientists. The Clay hypothesis postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform of silicate crystals in solution.

Hmmmmm...


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Red Rain Cells have no DNA and can reproduce. Viruses have either DNA or RNA but cant metabolize nutrients, produce and excrete wastes, move around on their own, or even reproduce.

Who designed the designer?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No one he has always existed. Who designed life since it could not designed itself ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Energy is God.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Energy has always existed. Energy needs no designer.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 19, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> That's why life beginning as chemical reactions in a liquid ocean and growing from there makes perfect sense.  At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.



not to mention the proximity of the Sun's ambient temperature, rotation and axis of the planet, presence of water .... 

a pity the Bible is so awful - just the ingredients for life and the process of its beginnings are in themselves stages necessarily made possible by a Creator as not - the proof being the persuasion Life must follow for its completion as a standard is not set by the physiological form created but by a directive that if not followed will result in failure despite the hardiness of the form.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wrong nice try just because someone claimed that red rain cells do not have DNA does not make it so. Oh by the way red rain cells are viable and they do contain DNA.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



God is energy thanks for playing where were you educated ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


No they don't. It was claimed that the red pigment contained DNA, but it was later found out it was red algae spores which were minor contaminants.
Try again.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Energy is God, energy has no designer.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Prove the designer requires a designer.  

If the designer created the universe, they also created time. (See 'space time continuum.')


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The Creationist argument for a designer is the complex cannot evolve from the simple as Evolution maintains. Therefore the designer must more complex than the creation requiring a more complex designer to create the designer.

When all the already existing energy of the universe went bang, space/time began. See the Big Bang.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > That's why life beginning as chemical reactions in a liquid ocean and growing from there makes perfect sense.  At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.
> ...



This is a very well-made point, and one the god-haters certainly don't like to acknowledge. The setup itself, is both curiously unique and essential to support life systems as we understand them. The planet had to have particular abundance of specific primordial elements, a smaller celestial body had to collide with the planet, early on, and come to rest in rotational orbit, giving us a distinct wobble in our rotation, giving us seasons, as well as a counterforce to enable tides. But the 'trick shot' of all 'trick shots' is not finished, without tides and seasons, there are billions of life forms we have no way to rationally explain the existence of, which other life forms are totally dependent upon and couldn't exist without. 

Another fascinating phenomenon, is the Solar Wind.  Can any of you astute god-haters explain this one? Not HOW, but WHY?  And does this force constitute "energy?" It's clearly there, we can see and observe it, the Northern Lights are one of the most awe inspiring things I've ever witnessed on this planet. We think that we know HOW it functions, but we do not understand why. It's like black holes, dark energy, antimatter, or even, good old gravity and electricity... we know HOW they work, but WHY? 

Yet it all had to come into harmonious alignment for life to even be possible. To me, it is simply a 'beyond-all-odds' type of miracle, to believe it all happened by chance. It is just way too elaborate and intricate, not to have been the product of intelligent design.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > God is life.
> ...



God is imaginary.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The evidence supports life related and connected on a chemical level.  Even Gods 'Special Monkeys' bleed red blood.

The evidence supports lots and lots of time involved for life to evolve in to Monkeys.

The ancient stories are cute.  The kind of bullshit one might expect to hear around a middle eastern campfire circa 8,000 - 10,000 years ago...  If God is, She's way bigger than ALL the ancient stories, let alone any one of them.


----------



## Mom (May 20, 2013)

* Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*

Did anyone actually offer something up?


----------



## tipofthespear (May 20, 2013)

Mom said:


> * Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*
> 
> Did anyone actually offer something up?




The only "proof" needed to know God exist is the fact that so very many self proclaimed atheist feel the need to spend so much time debating the issue...........how ignorant does one have to be to waste time debating the existence of something/someone they don't believe exists?

If these so called atheist TRULY BELIEVED God does not exist, they wouldn't bother.....their own actions is all the proof needed.......yet there is an entire universe of proof.......and the fact that they are blinded to it in no way disproves His existence.

If these so called atheist have one sliver of scientific evidence that God does not exist, why do they not proclaim it from the highest of the highest mountain tops?  Well, because they cannot prove God does not exist...........truly they are loyal servants of the deceiver, and even with all their self proclaimed intellect, they don't even know that........Sad, truly sad.  Self proclaimed atheist are only deserving of the "pity" of believers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ok is this just what some on your side want to believe so they think that a creator is not needed.

Quote

very standard tests (with DAPI), and they do show a positive for DNA. But it&#8217;s well known that these could be false positives. There is really no 100% detection of DNA, based on fluorescence. 

They have not proven there is no DNA present yet. I will bet you they will discover DNA eventually

Red Rain Cells of Kerala, India - Still No Definite DNA

Could be false positives lol which is true but we know that no life exists without DNA.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Apparently God has no beginning and no end.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Why would you think mans scientific laws would apply to the creator ?


----------



## Mom (May 20, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > * Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*
> ...



I'm agnostic (I don't see any proof either way), so atheists are just as deluded as theists, because neither one has any solid proof for their position. I'm just curious to see if any real proof exists for a god.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


It is a proven fact that energy has no begining or end. No apparently about it.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They are NATURE's laws and the Creator/Designer is completely bound by them. Nature is supreme.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > * Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*
> ...



Unless you can repeat the origins of life on earth over and over in a lab, definitive proof one way or the other will never exist.  All a Monkey can do is make up his/her own mind based on the evidence at hand.

2,000 year old ancient stories?    All knowledge gleaned from the last 2,000 years?  

It's up to you, Monkey.  What to believe has always been up to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Only two things God can't do is commit sin or Die.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Can God create and that creation produce energy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

Can man do the same thing ?


----------



## amrchaos (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Can man do the same thing ?



Are we talking about man?


----------



## Montrovant (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Who are you to say what god can or cannot do?  That seems fairly arrogant.  

Hi YWC!  Long time no see.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 20, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Obviously not or you wouldn't spend so much time denouncing him. I guess you're imagining Him too.


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Spirituality is not a quantifiable thing.
so by definition it is made up!
I agree that humans have connections but if and until you can rule out all other causes such as,  pheromones or nurture or species recognition, the idea of spiritual connection is highly speculative.


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


again more bullshit !
Vitalism 

Vitalism is the belief that the life-principle is non-material. This originated with Stahl (17th century), and held sway until the middle of the 19th century. It appealed to philosophers such as Henri Bergson, Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey,[18] anatomists like Bichat, and chemists like Liebig.[19] Vitalism included the idea that there was a fundamental difference between organic and inorganic material, and the belief that organic material can only be derived from living things. This was disproved in 1828, when Friedrich Wöhler prepared urea from inorganic materials.[20] This Wöhler synthesis is considered the starting point of modern organic chemistry. It is of historical significance because for the first time an organic compound was produced from inorganic reactants.[19]

During the 1850s, Helmholtz, anticipated by Mayer, demonstrated that no energy is lost in muscle movement, suggesting that there were no "vital forces" necessary to move a muscle.[21] These results led to the abandonment of scientific interest in vitalistic theories, although the belief lingered on in pseudoscientific theories such as homeopat


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! It's you who misinterpreted the findings..after you had a religious   Epiphany. 
your work as you call you call it,  was observing not theorizing..
there is no evidence of a designer.


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > * Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*
> ...


I love it when 
zealots yammer this kind of shit...
 the facts: there is no proof of god  conversely there is no proof there is not a god.
there is no proof of a devil if there was then god created it and it only does what god wants it too.
if not then god is not all powerful..  
but there is proof of evolution there is no proof of design intelligent or otherwise.
it's a logical  fallacy... since WE consciously design, we logically but falsely assume that everything is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Hello Montrovant, my opinion is based on what the scriptures say concerning God.


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


more proof the scriptures are inaccurate...to say nothing of your opinion.
if god could make everything and presumably do everything then there is no logical reason for god not to do these things if for no other reason then to understand what it was like to be the things he created.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What do you mean by "already existing energy?" Where did it exist if there was no physical universe to exist in? 

Also, there is nothing about Creationism OR Evolution which demands a designer be designed. This is a fabricated assumption, made by ass clowns who want to continue to reject the possibility of intelligent design, because they hate Jebus. 

If time did not exist before the universe, nothing else could have existed, except the force which created the universe. This force did not "come into existence" because there was no "exist" before the universe existed, there was no time and space to exist in.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Sounds like a human criteria you are applying to god. Why would god have ANY need? Why would god need to understand? What is there for god to understand? What you have done, like so many atheists, and religious folks for that matter, is to apply humanistic standards to god. As humans, I think this is just in our nature to do, we can't help it. In order for us to comprehend god, we have to define god with human characteristics. So we imagine god becoming angry if we don't do what he wants... why wouldn't god simply vaporize us and send our soul to hell instantly? OR a god who needs and wants us to praise him... why didn't god just make us do this naturally, like breathing? God doesn't need anything from you, god doesn't care if you believe in god or not, nor does it hurt god's feelings if you spend every waking hour of your relatively short existence, bashing, trashing, and ridiculing god's existence.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Even God cannot change the past. 
Agathon (448 BC - 400 BC).


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


No, it has been proven that energy cannot be created.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

> No, it has been proven that energy cannot be created.



Then god can't be created. Problem solved!


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Just before the Big Bang, all the energy of the universe was compressed into a single point. At that point time did not exist as time exists only in terms of motion. When that energy went bang, time began.

Complexity is the rationalization Creationists use to require a creator claiming the complex cannot come from the simple. Higher more complex forms of life cannot evolve from simpler forms of life, therefore the creator must be more complex than his or her creation or the whole argument for a creator falls apart. Since anything complex requires a creator, the complexity of a creator requires a creator or yet again the argument for a creator falls apart.

Again you are wrong, energy always existed before the Big Bang and will continue to exist after the Big Crunch, only time began at the Big Bang.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> > No, it has been proven that energy cannot be created.
> 
> 
> 
> Then god can't be created. Problem solved!


Only if God is energy and not a spirit, disproving your OP.
Thank you, problem solved!


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"Collins announced his resignation from NHGRI on May 28, 2008"

Thank you for admitting to your comprehension shortcoming.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Quite the opposite. The embarrassment is all yours that anyone could examine all of that scientific evidence and still be as stupid as you are.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet again you display your profound ignorance!


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



First of all, I think your assumptions about what the Creationists believe is inaccurate. The argument of 'irreducible complexity' is actually a part of Darwin theory. But this is applied to physical things within the physical universe, not god. God is the energy which existed before the physical universe and will exist after it, but god doesn't reside in the physical universe. You adamantly claim the energy which created the universe, always existed, wasn't created... but somehow, you can't apply that to god? 

Contradict yourself much?


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



In case you missed it, I was sarcastically mocking YOUR ignorance!


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.



> > That's why life beginning as chemical reactions in a liquid ocean and growing from there makes perfect sense.  At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.
> >
> > The Common Hand - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine
> 
> ...



Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in water solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > No, it has been proven that energy cannot be created.
> ...



God is a spirit that can materialize and as spirit possesses power. For anyone who believes in the God of the bible he is pretty well described as having power and no limitations.

Mat 19:26  And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 

Jer 10:12  He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding hath he stretched out the heavens. 

Psa 62:11  God hath spoken once, Twice have I heard this, That power belongeth unto God.

Psa 66:7  He ruleth by his might for ever; His eyes observe the nations: Let not the rebellious exalt themselves. Selah.

Psa 79:11  Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee: According to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to death;

Job 26:14  Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand? 

Job 9:4  He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: Who hath hardened himself against him, and prospered? - 

1Co 6:14  and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up as through his power. 

2Co 13:4  for he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him through the power of God toward you.

2Co 6:7  in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 

Psa 136:12  With a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm; For his lovingkindness endureth for ever: 

Isa 26:4  Trust ye in Jehovah for ever; for in Jehovah, even Jehovah, is an everlasting rock.

Eph 6:10  Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might.

Zep 3:17  Jehovah thy God is in the midst of thee, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Throwing yet another pity party for yourself since your idiotic genera whine crashed and burned?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Thank you for admitting that your deity is a paradox that cannot exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't prove oxygen was not present in our early atmosphere. Name one atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen.

Now imagine this planet if there were no atmosphere.

The Earth's Atmosphere

Maybe, maybe not,but it is certain that amino acids could not.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Only in your Ideological mind sorry for my opinion of you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
> ...



Your ignorance never fails to expose you.



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Omnipotence is a paradox. Too bad that basic logic is anathema to believers like you.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> > At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Science is taking a theory and either proving it or disproving it based on the evidence.

6,000 to 10,000 year old earth versus a 4.5 billion year old earth - what does the evidence support?

Deity creating each individual life form versus intertwined and related life, created by chemical reaction and crafted by time, death and mutation - what does the evidence support?

While origins, sans proof of God, is impossible to prove one way or the other because the process cannot be repeated in a lab.  Whether you believe that God created the earth in 6 days or that 4.5 billions years of dynamic chemical reactions is responsible for Monkeys who are capable of asking the question, that belief is based on faith.

O.k. - everyone who considers the origins of Earth and Her Monkeys at all MUST base their conclusions on their own faith in the evidence.

Ancient middle eastern stories of creation -vs- modern archeology, zoology, geology, astronomy, physics, medicine, history, etc., etc., etc.
What does the evidence say?  ​


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Wiki now that is a source to behold and do you understand the difference between fact and theory ?

The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moons present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old. 

I would trust Gravity over evolutionists theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.
> ...



A theory is never proven,


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No... a theory once proven is a fact.

Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.

So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.

All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides.  The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.



If there was no oxygen, there couldn't have been water. It is part oxygen. 



> Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in *water* solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.



Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...








Simple Answer: Nothing is guaranteed 100%. (In life or physics)

Now to the physics part of the question. 

Soft-Answer:

Physics uses positivism and observational proof through the scientific process. No observation is 100% accurate there is uncertainty in all measurement but repetition gives less chance for arbitrary results. 

Every theory and for that matter laws in physics are observational representations that best allow prediction of future experiments. Positivism can overcome theological and philosophical discrepancies such as what is the human perception of reality. Is real actually real type questions.

The scientific process is an ever evolving representation of acquired knowledge based on rigorous experimental data. 

No theory is set in stone so to speak as new results allow for modification and fine tuning of scientific theory.


soft question - Can a scientific theory ever be absolutely proven? - Physics Stack Exchange


----------



## numan (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moons present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old.


"You Were Born Yesterday", you obviously have mush for brains.

Not only are you so ignorant that you do not know how oxygen was formed on the Earth, you are so incapable of reason as to assume that tidal effects are constant over time -- which means that you do not understand how tidal forces operate.

Tidal forces simultaneously drive the Moon farther away from the Earth and slow the rotation rate of the Earth. When the Moon was closer to the Earth, these forces were *stronger*; now that the Moon is farther away, the forces are *weaker* than they once were. 

That means that the origin of the Earth-Moon System was much closer to 4.6 billion years ago than 1.2 billion years ago !!
.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Theory:  Pure water turns to a solid when temperatures dip below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Experiment #1 - Yup.
Experiment #2 - Yup.
Experiment #3 - Yup.

Any experiments where pure water did NOT become solid below 32 degrees Fahrenheit?
No....

Conclusion:  Pure water becoming a solid at temperatures below 32 degrees Fahrenheit is a PROVEN FACT.

  WYGD?


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.



Free oxygen was scarce as the element was bound into various compounds such as CO2 and H2O.  Photo synthesis converted CO2 and H2O into O2... the oxygen which we breathe.  The chemical conversion is as follows:



> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + photons &#8594; C6H12O6 + 6 O2



or in english



> carbon dioxide + water + sunlight &#8594; glucose + dioxygen



But you know that.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> No... a theory once proven is a fact.
> 
> Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.
> 
> ...



Once you have determined a theory is proven fact, you begin practicing faith and stop practicing science. Proof does not require anything other than faith and belief. So far in our history, there is no physical evidence of a spiritual god. 

Science does not determine theories are proven fact, it remains constantly open to possibility, regardless of probabilities. When you assume science has concluded, you are wrong. You are actually adopting a faith-based belief that science has concluded something. Even something so physically absolute as gravity, is not "proven fact" by science. There is still the remote possibility that gravity will not behave according to prediction. 

Proof and evidence is subjective, always. Science does not determine what constitutes proof or evidence, this is a determination humans make as a result of faith in science. As I pointed out in the OP, some people are not capable of understanding spiritual proof, which like scientific proof, requires faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 20, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moons present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old.
> ...



Oh did my math hit a nerve


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.
> ...



So oxygen most certainly _DID_ exist on the planet. 
_"No oxygen was present"_ is a lie, correct?


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


rolf!
love it when you asshats pontificate...
they apply because god is a concept of man...even stranger is you thumpers consistently remaking god in you own image.. that whole last paragraph of zealot noise is a fine example.
btw if anything I'm bASHING  trashing and ridiculing your false witness of god. not the imaginary being it's self.


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> > No, it has been proven that energy cannot be created.
> 
> 
> 
> Then god can't be created. Problem solved!


or create since it' takes energy to create or destroy. 
real problem solved.


----------



## daws101 (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > No... a theory once proven is a fact.
> ...



"Spiritual proof"?


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




Well, you can rofl all you like, and continue exercising your faith that god doesn't exist, but you have not proven this to me or 95% of the humans who've ever lived. We have an undeniable connection to something, and it can't be explained in the physical sense, with physical science, yet it is there. Scoff at it, ridicule it, call it names, it's still there. 

In order to believe in the evidence for science, in order to believe that science "proves" things, don't you have to believe in science itself? If you have chosen to reject science in favor of, say, spiritual evidence... would there ever be any way to convince you with scientific evidence? Of course not, so why should you ever be convinced of a spiritual entity, if you reject spiritual evidence and spiritual nature? You can't be, no one has the power to open your mind except you. In order to evaluate whether a god exists in a spiritual sense, which IS the question, then you MUST evaluate spiritual evidence objectively, and you have closed your mind to this.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Laugh all you like, it is the nucleus of the argument stated in the OP, and this thread now has over 10k views. As of yet, no one has refuted my points. You've only managed to confirm the most fundamental point of the argument, that if you don't evaluate or acknowledge spiritual evidence, the question can't be resolved for you. As we see, the question remains unresolved for you, because you have not proven that god doesn't exist.


----------



## dblack (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Can you prove Santa Claus doesn't exist?


----------



## HUGGY (May 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Would a stack O Comic books prove that Superman exists?


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
> ...


Hey dumbass, he meant FREE Oxygen.


----------



## Patric7olicoe (May 20, 2013)

Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.



Oh, I know Behe coined the phrase, but the principle is actually part of Darwin's theory. It is not the 'opposite' of anything, because Evolution deals with species evolving, not origin. Darwin made a very detailed analytical standard for natural selection, because he realized it couldn't simply be used willy-nilly to explain anything and everything. 

Here is what Darwin said regarding his theory and the human eye: to suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. He goes on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species. 

Now it is on this prerequisite of natural selection, Behe makes his argument for irreducible complexity. The powers of natural selection are not predictive, they can't presume to know that a photoreceptor spot is going to need a lens, an iris and pupil, and then form it. IF evolution is this amazing, it is more of a miracle than God. The simple photoreceptor cells, which Darwin very well knew about, were thought for a long time, to be a predecessor to the modern eye, but as we've learned more about the optic nerve and chemical reactions, the more we understand the two systems are completely different. Humans do not utilize the optic nerve in the same way as something with a photoreceptor cell. The operation of the optic nerve is entirely different, but Darwin didn't know this. 

So the evolution of the eye has not been shown, as Darwin previously thought. The eye is irreducibly complex, meaning; if any one component of the eye is not present, the system doesn't work. If evolution is responsible, it had to 'intelligently' compile a checklist of parts needed, and construct what we know to be an eye. There is no "simpler stage" the eye could have had, and still function at all. What we once thought to be links to primitive photovoltaic spots, turned out to be false leads, the systems are completely different and operate on a completely different principle. 

Behe's argument is not to be carried as far as you rhetorically like to carry it. Natural selection can indeed produce a more complex or robust system over time, but it has to work within the confines of what is natural and within bounds of nature. It can't predict that various components will eventually be needed and start building those, so they are complete when everything else is in place. That's just not how natural selection works. If you believe that natural selection has the ability to be predictive like this, you believe in "intelligent" design.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Of course I haven't proven that God does not exist!  90 pages in to your 'Proof of God' thread and nobody has proven that He's real either!

It's ALL a matter of opinion!  Opinion and faith!  

You're betting your life on the accuracy of the ancient stories and I think that kind of faith is silly, considering what's been learned since they were written.
  WYGD?  


At the risk of redundancy... 
"Spiritual Proof"?



There is no 'proof'.  All a Monkey can offer is evidence.



> _"If there is a God of this world and He loves us; I should not like to be Him, as the suffering that is its history would surely break my heart."_
> -Penniless European Philosopher, circa 1800's



Face it... Sans the claims made in the ancient stories, you've got NOTHING for evidence of your God.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Coca-Cola invented Santa Claus.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.



Yet you can't pull yourself away from this topic.


----------



## tipofthespear (May 21, 2013)

QUOTE:

Of course I haven't proven that God does not exist! 90 pages in to your 'Proof of God' thread and nobody has proven that He's real either!

It's ALL a matter of opinion! Opinion and faith! 

You're betting your life on the accuracy of the ancient stories and I think that kind of faith is silly, considering what's been learned since they were written.
 WYGD? 


At the risk of redundancy... 
"Spiritual Proof"?



There is no 'proof'. All a Monkey can offer is evidence.

END QUOTE:

You are BETTING YOUR ETERINTY that the Word of God is just "ancient stories," and that requires FAR MORE FAITH than Christianity ever does.......as for what's been learned since the recording of the Word of God............WHAT SPECIFICALLY?  That you are a high level chimp?  Hey, if that mows your grass..........go for it!  Evolution is a lie........and to date none of you who proclaim the great ape as your ancestor has given my one specific example of a partially evolved species walking the earth today.......not one single sliver of evidence of a half man / half monkey walking around........and until you do, you are all exhibiting far more faith in a flawed theory/outright lie than I will ever need to trust in God and His Written/Spoken Word.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
> ...



I'm always looking to see if anyone has any real proof of a god, and what their arguments might be, because I find the subject interesting. Is that ok?


----------



## tipofthespear (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...




That statement alone proves you are not an atheist anyway, so good for that.......for a true atheist would never entertain the idea that "real proof of God's existence" could ever possibly exist....I suppose you are agnostic, and, at least your are searching for answers..........who knows?  One day you may find what you are looking for......just don't let it be the very last realization of your existence.......


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
> ...



Water did not form on the planet out of oxygen and hydrogen. It was part of the space debris that coalesced into the planet. The scientific evidence for the existence of water in the form of ice can be found on comets. There is evidence of ice on the planet mercury too.


----------



## tipofthespear (May 21, 2013)

QUOTE:  
The 6 Mistakes of Man

1. The delusion that individual advancement is made by crushing others.
2. Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it.
3. The tendency to worry about things that cannot be changed.
4. Refusing to set aside trivial preferences.
5. Neglecting development and refinement of mind and not acquiring the habit of reading and study.
6. Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.

Cicero 
END QUOTE:

And this is a great explanation of why Darwin's Theory, and the Big Bang joke is so very funny.....thanks for the comment.......


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Since that was *your ignorant statement* that makes it *your lie*. 

This is the original statement;



> Quote: Originally Posted by Derideo_Te
> 
> There was *virtually* no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.



Which was in response to this example of your fellow believer's ignorance;



> Quote: Originally Posted byYouwerecreated
> 
> Well I have to respectfully disagree with you . Amino acids are soluble in water they would dissolve and never be able to form proteins. No a cell could not form in a body of water and *they could not form where oxygen is present they would decay just like any organism that dies and is exposed to oxygen*.



Now you can continue to make yourself look foolish by all means but if you had any sense you would know when to quit. No one is holding their breath expecting that to happen any time soon.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



So you accept the possibility that there is a God?


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.
> ...


Behe himself credits William Paley for the concept, not Darwin. And your Darwin quote is a perfect example of the dishonest quote mining of Creationist liars. Darwin went on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species. But as a know-it-all you knew that already.

If you remember, our ancient little part plant part animal the Euglena had an eye spot to help it find the light for photosynthesis. Through random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapesthe nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Like so many fundamentalist believers you lack the basic honesty and integrity to admit when you are proven wrong. Instead of either admitting your mistake or  attempting to factually refute the hard scientific evidence that exposed your absurd conjecture that cells could never have formed you *deflect* to something utterly irrelevant instead. Needless to say this also exposes your canard that you don't "attack science". In essence you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy and without credibility. Have a nice day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.



There is plenty of evidence of a designer if there is no designer life was a miracle.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You're simply a rude little twit.

 A reducing atmosphere is merely an assumption not supported by the physical evidence. The evidence points to the fact that the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere. There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earths oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.

If there were no oxygen in the early atmosphere, another fatal problem arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist, and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.

Either way your theory crumbles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Speak for yourself junior.


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And you are simply a lying little twit.

Everything you posted about O2 has already been rebutted earlier in this thread.

As far as your bullshit about O3, the sun's UV rays do not penetrate the ocean.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
> ...



You don't know that a designer was present, it's just wishful thinking on your part. What evidence?


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way, so yes, until disproven with actual facts, a god is a possibility. But so far, I see no actual facts supporting a claim for the existence of a god.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



And you will never see any such facts and the reason is God wants you to have faith of His existence. 

"Do not be afraid any longer, only believe." ( Mark 5:36) 

Faith is one of three things that endure forever - the others being love and hope.

 If you understand faith for what it really is - not just believing a set of facts, but an abiding relationship of trust between two parties; you will understand that faith is essential because it is the eternal basis for our relationship with God throughout all eternity.

Faith makes perfect sense, to those who understand.. But understanding comes by faith; not faith by understanding.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So you ignore the fact that the building blocks of life are soluble in water ? Do you know what the building blocks of life are ? I don't know if you're a liar or just ignorant of the facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



You believe a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would purposefully produce the many things necessary for life ? Do you believe that it is logical to assume that all the things necessary for life are only found on this planet in our solar system ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


I am not afraid.
Therefore I do not need to believe.

HUGH MASEKELA - I Am Not Afraid (1974)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qghMyvVuClI]Hugh Masekela - In the market place - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Faith is the belief in something unsubstantiated, I can't do that. That just makes no sense to me.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


It is illogical to assume life exists only on this planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



You may not be for now but the bible predicts you will be at God's arrival.


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Just a little musical entertainment for those of us who are not afraid.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



I agree with Ed, life is all over the universe and we'll probably find some extra-terrestial life in our lifetime. Life is built in to this universe. By a designer? Maybe. But I see no actual proof yet to say that for sure.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Say's who ? you let me know when life is discovered on another planet. That is kind of the approach of Darwin by assuming that the fossil record would show a slow gradual evolution of organisms and his theory failed. Some are just not willing to admit it though and continue with the charade.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is the only way I would even consider naturalism if they showed life on other planets but there is no evidence that life could have begun without someone directing it. I once believed as some of you but just could not buy all the miracles necessary for things to be as they are.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So assuming we find life somewhere else, what's your position then?


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


The bible predicts a lot of stupid things, like in the last days one third of the stars will strike the Earth, and yet the Earth will still remain.

Rev 12: 3* And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
 4* And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
 5* And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
 6* And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.


----------



## dblack (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's possible we'll move on toward a more sane appreciation of religion at that point.

No LIKELY. But possible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That would be a battle of faith because there are many things God has not shared with mankind but it would make me question my faith.

It would be, is it just that God did not tell us life was on other planets or does God exist ? I still would be troubled because there is no evidence for spontaneous generation.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No...

But I do believe that a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would, over time, produce the many things necessary for life and for life to evolve spectacularly.  I also believe that liquid water and all the necessary chemicals for life are quite abundant in the universe.

I ass-u-me that you believe the creation process as described in the ancient story called The Bible?

What we have here is 2 Monkeys, neither of whom have any proof, with a difference of opinion about where Monkeys came from.    WYGD?


----------



## dblack (May 21, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



But if YWC is right, the reward is eternal paradise. If you're right, all you get is a deeper understanding of the natural world.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again, Behe coined the phrase, credited Paley with the concept, but the principle of the argument is found in Darwinist theory. 



> And your Darwin quote is a perfect example of the dishonest quote mining of Creationist liars. Darwin went on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species. But as a know-it-all you knew that already.



You're just repeating what I said, you're not contradicting anything. Natural selection is bound by certain limits or rules, and this is why Darwin has to offer a likely course for evolution. Turns out, he was incorrect regarding evolution of the eye. Therefore, in his own words, it is absurd to believe the eye is produced by natural selection. 



> If you remember, our ancient little part plant part animal the Euglena had an eye spot to help it find the light for photosynthesis. Through random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapesthe nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve.



Yes, this is precisely how Darwin explained it in 1859.  What we eventually would discover, is the photosensitive cell system is completely different from the human optic nerve system. One operates on chemical reaction from light stimulation, the other works on electric impulses to the brain from an optic nerve, receiving an image. Two completely different and unique systems of operation. So when you theorize the precursor to the modern eye was a pit or depression, the human eye would be of no use, it would not function at all. The way a pinhole camera functions, flips the image, so the retina in a human eye, receives the information upside down, and our brain transposes the information right-side-up, a step that is totally unnecessary for a photosensitive spot. 

You are trying to take an 1859 understanding, and force-fit that understanding, regardless of what science has learned since that time. What Darwin theorized, is not supported by the evidence here.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"Life is all over the universe", you state that as if it's a fact yet there is no proof of it.

So my question is how can you make such a claim without any evidence while reserving your position on the existence of God until you see evidence?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

dblack said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



AJ has the satisfaction of a life lived to the fullest whereas YWC wastes his serving a fictional master in expectation of an imaginary "reward" that he won't be around to enjoy.


----------



## S.J. (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


How do we know that God didn't put life on many other planets, each with their own history and circumstances?  Why would the discovery of life on another planet mean there is no God?  If he created the universe, why would he only put life on one planet?


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Have you read the OP argument? It lays out perfectly valid evidence and shows how god can be proven to definitively exist. Now, if you are not willing to examine (or even accept) the spiritual evidence, there is no way to 'prove' god to you. If you are expecting physical evidence of a spiritual entity, you may as well become an atheist. 

We've been through all of this philosophically, "proof" is what you perceive to be proof. Facts are things you have faith in being true. If you don't believe in a spiritual realm, spiritual nature, or spiritual entities, then even the simple nature of "existence" means something different to you. No one will ever be able to prove physical existence of god, if they did, god would instantly cease to be a spiritual entity, and become physical. The only way to even try and evaluate this question, is to acknowledge and accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual existence. If your mind remains closed to that possibility, god can never be proven to exist to you.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



I love when the god-haters posit the notion that life on another planet would dispel god. What if we discovered another intelligent civilization, vastly different than ours in so many ways, completely different homeostasis, but the one common thing we find is an inherent spiritual belief in a higher power? My guess is, the god-haters would chalk it up to yet another remarkable coincidence. Reason being, they've already done that here on our planet. When Columbus and others ventured west to discover the "New World" they found Aztecs and Mayans practicing spirituality. They found Native Americans doing the same. Isolated island tribes... same thing. Over and over, we've discovered human civilization accompanied by human spirituality.


----------



## numan (May 21, 2013)

'
Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!

For thousands of years deep thinkers with far more subtle minds than you two characters have tried to prove the existence of God, and there have always turned out to be flaws in their arguments.
.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The mathematical probability of planets around other suns was almost 100% long before there was any evidence for the existence of those planets. The mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere on at least 1 other planet around the 1022 to 1024 stars in the visible universe is also virtually 100%. It takes a very special kind of arrogance to believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!
> 
> For thousands of years deep thinkers with far more subtle minds than you two characters have tried to prove the existence of God, and there have always turned out to be flaws in their arguments.
> .



The only flaw in my argument is the assumption everybody can read and comprehend it. I have proved god's existence definitively, you just don't accept spiritual evidence, and thus, have no concept of spiritual existence. As my argument correctly states, god can never be proven to you. In order to meet your criteria, god would have to become a physical entity, because that is the only "evidence" you will acknowledge. 

In order to drive home this point, I have juxtaposed what you believe, with someone who rejects scientific evidence in favor of "spiritual enlightenment," and rejects any argument you may present based in science. If you are trying to scientifically explain how rain happens, the evaporation process, etc., and they just look at you with a dumb stare, and say... but god didn't tell me that, so it's not true!  What can you do? How can you ever convince that person? They've closed their minds to physical science, they reject any belief in it whatsoever.... so how can you prove anything to them, using science? 

You are on the other side of this coin, you reject the spiritual evidence required to understand spiritual existence, the terms are greek to you, because you reject spiritual nature altogether. I can explain it until I am blue in the face, you are still not going to accept spiritual evidence, therefore, I can never prove god exists to you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



Too bad you have utterly failed to get past the *FACT* that spiritualism is a nothing more than a state of mind of a *PHYSICAL BRAIN*. All that you have "proved" is that you *BELIEVE* in fairies, ghosts, goblins and unicorns. No one is disputing your right to believe in nonsense however pretending that fairies, ghosts, et al are real does not make them exist.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



There is a distinct difference between a statement that "life is all over the universe" and "there is a high mathematical probability life exists elsewhere." Seems to me, until you can find life elsewhere, it is illogical to say life is everywhere. It may indeed be possible, highly probable, almost certain... but until it is proven it isn't proven. 

But this does beg the question, if the universe is full of life-enabling elements, why do we not see an abundance of life around us? Why is it we find no other place in our solar system, where life as we know it on Earth, could even survive? The more we look out into our universe, the more we are discovering these conditions on Earth are sort of special. They are not common, as best we can tell. Lots of candidates close enough to their sun, but covered in methane clouds... lots more with no atmosphere to speak of... some so affected by volcanic eruptions and massive electrical storms, life couldn't survive if it ever did exist there. So no, you have NOT proven "life is everywhere in the universe" ...far from it! You have not shown ANY sign of extraterrestrial life. Yet, here you are, claiming it true!


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2013)

Boss, can you define spiritual evidence please?

From what I have gathered thus far, it sounds almost like it could also mean emotional evidence.  I say that because, as you say the spiritual has no physical manifestation, that it is neither matter nor energy, the only way to 'see' or 'experience' the spiritual is through a vague notion of feeling it.

If the spiritual is those things which we cannot detect with our 5 senses, which we cannot see repetitive reactions to, but we believe exist....well, that's some pretty thin logic if it can be called logic at all.  Of course many will not accept that.  Every false myth that's ever existed could be explained like that.

If there is a more refined definition of the spiritual, one that makes sense to those who don't already accept the existence of the spiritual, that would be wonderful.  Much better than needing to believe in the spiritual in order to believe in the spiritual.


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Of course, our solar system is such an infinitesimal speck in the vastness of the universe as we understand it....the idea that life should be found elsewhere in the solar system is pretty silly.  Even if there are a million other planets which currently have life of some sort on them (and currently is a big deal - there could have been life on trillions of planets in the past which has since died out, there could be life on countless planets in the future, the universe is likely a very old thing) the odds are pretty small that we can observe that life at this point in our technological advancement.  It is, in fact, quite possible that we will never be able to observe life on other worlds; if Einstein was right about the inability of matter to travel at or beyond the speed of light, and we can't find a way around that, we'll never be able to get very far into the universe.

While I agree that stating there definitely is life on other worlds is wrong, I don't think that is how Mom was saying it.  By prefacing her statement with 'I agree with Ed' she was echoing the sentiment.  Ambiguously worded, perhaps, but what I took from it was that it is her belief, not some statement of irrefutable fact.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Are you saying probabilities = evidence?

I'm not saying whether there is or isn't life on other planets. I'm saying we have no evidence that there are.


----------



## dblack (May 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



There's always a catch, eh?

I look at it like the lottery vs. investing in stocks. You'll make a lot more winning the lottery than you'll ever earn investing in the market. Who wouldn't want that? But a sensible person considers the odds. The chances that fantastical stories about winged sky people and angry gods smiting foes are the key to salvation seem somewhat less than me hitting the powerball, and I'd rather invest my intellectual energy in ways more likely to produce a return.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



That's not a fact, that is your opinion and it's defies logic. Even your own Darwinist theory says that if the behavior was superficial, it would have been discarded long ago. Species do not retain unnecessary attributes of behavior, for novelty sake. This simply does not happen in nature, and defies Darwin's theories. It's humankind's intrinsic connection to spirituality, that makes the most profound argument for the case, but you dismiss this as a meaningless anomaly, because you reject the spiritual evidence. 

We can go over this once more.... "PROOF" is merely something you have faith and belief in, and perceive as evidence. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not recognize spiritual proof.  "FACTS" are merely things you have faith and believe are true, based on what you perceive as proof. Since you reject spiritual nature, you are incapable of accepting spiritual facts. 

Don't worry, you have constructed an air-tight convention, god believers will never be able to penetrate your disbelief. As long as you continue to keep that door of your mind closed, it will remain closed, no one else can open it except for you. There is no need for you to spend all your waking hours, nailing boards across the door in these threads. I get it! Save you wood and nails!


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



At least people are looking for life elsewhere because they think it's there. No one is looking for your god because no one expects to find anything, even you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



She did not say it was "her belief" she stated it as if it were a fact and her statement was not ambiguous at all.

I was merely questioning how she could think that "life was all over the universe" without any evidence and then say she couldn't believe in God unless there was evidence.

It sounded a little hypocritical to me.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We're going to find life either on Mars or on a frozen moon of Saturn. I say it's all over the universe because we're going to find it. Then you can burn your bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



God singled out this planet for a purpose and went on to say other planets are here for other reasons with no mention of life on the other planets. God did not say he created the heavens and the earth and filled it with life.

I have no doubt life only exists on this planet can I prove it know don't need to,to believe it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



People are finding God everyday. And sadly there are some that loses faith as well.

I'm not looking for God, I know He exist and through Him I am doing great things though I take no credit nor do I ask for any such credit. My reward will be waiting for me in Heaven. 

Is there nothing greater than yourself?


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Where do you get this gibberish? You just make it up as you go along?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I would never burn my Bible no matter if there is life on other planets are not.

You seem to have a lot of faith in your belief.


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I'm just showing you how absurd it is to believe in something with zero proof. Do you get it now?

So there's PROBABLY/POSSIBLY life elsewhere, until proven for sure.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Why do some think I wasted my life believing in the creator ?  trying my best to live by his laws and passing that on to my 8 children ?

I assure you I have had a great life and I give thanks to the Almighty for this life even though it is no comparison to the life that is coming in my view.

Do you know that 1 out of every 5 Americans believe that we are on the edge of the end for this civilization whether it be natural causes or the predictions of the bible ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



No Like my textbooks in college I read the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Pot meet kettle


----------



## Mom (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do some think I wasted my life believing in the creator ?  trying my best to live by his laws and passing that on to my 8 children ?
> 
> I assure you I have had a great life and I give thanks to the Almighty for this life even though it is no comparison to the life that is coming in my view.
> 
> Do you know that 1 out of every 5 Americans believe that we are on the edge of the end for this civilization whether it be natural causes or the predictions of the bible ?



2 out of 5 people think Obama was born in Africa. So what?

You didn't really waste your life, it was just a harmless delusion that you were living. Well, harmless unless you're a jihadist or a crusader...


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Why do some think I wasted my life believing in the creator ?  trying my best to live by his laws and passing that on to my 8 children ?
> ...



We will see.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




REALLY? WHY? Because, according to you, life on Earth came about as a result of primordial soup, all the elements of life from the universe, and over billions of years, evolved with nothing more than natural selection guiding the way. If this is such an easy read, why is the story not the same elsewhere? Life, if it were as easy to explain the origin of as you've made it out to be, should be all around us... on the moon, on Mars... the moons of Jupiter... etc. All the same natural elements that propagated life on Earth, are available everywhere else in the universe, so why is it silly to expect to see the same results? 

It's only "silly" because we don't find it. Before we were capable of looking, there were quite a few scientists who speculated life existed on other planets in our solar system. We're still convinced that we'll find microbial life on Mars! 



> Even if there are a million other planets which currently have life of some sort on them (and currently is a big deal - there could have been life on trillions of planets in the past which has since died out, there could be life on countless planets in the future, the universe is likely a very old thing) the odds are pretty small that we can observe that life at this point in our technological advancement.  It is, in fact, quite possible that we will never be able to observe life on other worlds; if Einstein was right about the inability of matter to travel at or beyond the speed of light, and we can't find a way around that, we'll never be able to get very far into the universe.



Yet the universe contains all of the essential elements to form life, and on our particular planet in the universe, this life formed in great abundance, and evolved into a completely self-sustaining ecosystem, working in harmony with natural forces, generating new species and varieties of living things, by the billions, all interdependent on each other for survival and existence, and at the technological pinnacle, is a species who happens to curiously possess profound spiritual connection to something greater than self. Weird man! 



> While I agree that stating there definitely is life on other worlds is wrong, I don't think that is how Mom was saying it.  By prefacing her statement with 'I agree with Ed' she was echoing the sentiment.  Ambiguously worded, perhaps, but what I took from it was that it is her belief, not some statement of irrefutable fact.



The irrefutable fact is, we've not discovered life elsewhere in our vast huge universe. Despite the fact that our vast huge universe is chock-full of life-enabling elements, and the supposed origin process is such a piece of cake. Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have a distinct wobble in our rotation, caused by the moon careening into the planet early on, and we have tides created by the presence of that same moon, which isn't too big or too small, and provides a gravitational pull on the oceans. The seasons and ocean tides are what enable almost every variety of life to exist, it is the key to most life cycles, reproduction, function, purpose. We have a layered atmosphere, one that blocks out radiation and ultraviolet rays, and one that maintains the perfect atmospheric pressure to enable life to exist. Because of the seasons and tides, and the atmosphere, we have a climate system which operates in a fairly stable manner, yes we have disasters, but we don't have hurricanes that consume large areas of our planet for thousands of years, like Jupiter. 

The further down the road of knowledge we go, the more we see that life is special, and it takes a lot of very special things to make it possible. You can only say "it just so happens" so many times, then it gets to be ridiculous. And when we couple all of this, with the indisputable fact that life's most advanced species is intrinsically tied to spirituality, it becomes almost impossible to believe ALL these things are coincidental.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



God has proven Himself to me in more ways that I can count.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Why do some think I wasted my life believing in the creator ?  trying my best to live by his laws and passing that on to my 8 children ?
> ...



Read up on the prophecies of Nostradamus and compare it to the bible interesting.


----------



## numan (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!
> ...


Oh, hubris  !!



Boss said:


> ...you just don't accept spiritual evidence, and thus, have no concept of spiritual existence....
> 
> You are on the other side of this coin, you reject the spiritual evidence required to understand spiritual existence, the terms are greek to you, because you reject spiritual nature altogether.


For someone who wants to prove something, you make a lot of unsupported assumptions.

I have my own private, subjective epiphanies of the wondrous Heart of Existence, where unity and diversity meld indescribably together -- but I would never dream of offering my subjective experience to others as "proof"!!

I accept the reality of Spiritual Existence, but I am sure we have different views of what it is.

I see, from a public point of view, spiritual existence revealed most clearly -- certainly not in religion!! -- but in mathematics -- a concrete, infinite, miraculously detailed and harmonious reality from beyond the boundaries of the physical universe -- though it is, to some degree, manifested in the way physical reality is structured.

What you think Spiritual Reality is, i don't really know, since you have never written clearly about it.
.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Once again your kneejerk reaction is to deny scientific facts. MRI studies of people undergoing "spiritual" experience show that it is most definitely a physical change occurring in the brain.



> PLOS ONE: Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation
> 
> Although aware of problems in conceptualizing trance, for the purpose of this study we used a more consensual and phenomenological definition of trance proposed by Cardeña [66]: a temporary alteration of consciousness, identity, and/or behavior evidenced by at least two of the following: (1) marked alteration of consciousness; (2) narrowed awareness of immediate surroundings; (3) movements experienced as being beyond one's control. In qualitative terms, since there is no one single expression of mediumship but rather important differences between people and occasions, our subjects reported varying types of *spiritual contact*. The less expert mediums were emotionally affected and reported feeling inspired during psychography, and being in a semi-conscious state  phrases came to them as if dictated  in relation to the written content, whereas the experienced mediums said that they were* out of their bodies *and had no control over the content* elaborated by the spirit.* The superior temporal gyrus, which contains the auditory cortex, was activated during psycography for less expert mediums, who heard phrases as if they were being dictated, but deactivated in the experienced subjects, who had no conscious control over the psychographed content. The superior temporal gyrus is also involved in linguistic comprehension and is a key area related to auditory hallucination in psychotic patients [49].





> Even your own *Darwinist theory *says that if the* behavior was superficial, it would have been discarded* long ago. Species do not retain unnecessary attributes of behavior, for novelty sake. This simply does not happen in nature, and defies Darwin's theories. It's humankind's intrinsic connection to spirituality, that makes the most profound argument for the case, but you dismiss this as a meaningless anomaly, because you reject the spiritual evidence.



According to your inane misunderstanding of Darwin behaviors such as drinking alcohol, writing fiction and day dreaming should all have disappeared too. Unfortunately for you they are all still very much around and do serve a purpose even if it is way beyond your meager comprehension. The ability to deceive oneself (as you are doing now) should also have disappeared. Obviously it serves a useful purpose. Too bad you won't ever understand that either.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Now this is funny stuff... so NOW you accept spiritual nature and existence? I thought it was all in our heads? Imaginations run wild? Mass delusions? Something we invented to explain the unexplained? Now you come along and say, it's real, you believe in it... just not the 'incarnation' that I believe.  Rich! Very rich! 

What you have proven is, most humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual connection, whether they admit it or not. I have often said; Atheists are sometimes bigger believers in god than some Christians. I believe they KNOW god exists, and their whole shtick is based on inner-anger toward the god they KNOW exists. It's why they spend so much time in these threads, trying to disavow god.


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You say according to me....have I opined to you about the origins of life on Earth? 

Anyway, your description of the difficulties involved in life arising on this planet only highlights why any assumption that there should be an abundance of life in this solar system seems silly to me.  There are numerous conditions necessary for life on Earth that are not present on other planets/moons in our solar system.  Are they present on other planets in the universe?  It seems probable based on the astronomically (pun intended) large number of planets we've observed, and the further number we extrapolate from those observations.

Life arising, at any time in the billions of years the universe is believed to exist, may be an exceedingly rare event.  Still, even if only 1 in every trillion planets or moons in the universe has life on it, there would be multiple places with life.  However, the odds of our seeing it would be appropriately small.

You say we have not found life elsewhere in our vast universe, and you are correct.  What you fail to mention, and in fact seem to imply isn't true, is that we have barely seen the tiniest portion of what the universe contains.  Our study of other planets is almost entirely done without enough detail to know if life might or might not exist on them.  

So again, the thought that because we have not found life on other worlds, it does not exist or even is unlikely to exist, is nothing but egocentric foolishness.  Considering how often the monotheistic religions of the world seem to try and push humility and man's insignificance in the grand scheme of things, I find that ironic.  Despite the wondrous advances mankind has made in recent history, our ability to find life elsewhere in the universe is still incredibly limited.

As to your claim that humanity is indisputably intrinsically tied to spirituality, that is and has been disputed.  Your inability to accept that doesn't change that it is in dispute, especially when the spiritual has been ill-defined at best.  In fact, I still await a definition from you for spiritual evidence, as do others in this thread.  Without proper definitions, the only conclusion I have been able to draw is that you consider spirituality something that you must believe in before you can explain it.  That kind of circular logic is worthless.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


love it when you asshats pontificate


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> *Why do some think I wasted my life believing in the creator* ?  trying my best to live by his laws and passing that on to my 8 children ?
> 
> I assure you I have had a great life and I give thanks to the Almighty for this life even though it is no comparison to the life that is coming in my view.
> 
> Do you know that 1 out of every 5 Americans believe that we are on the edge of the end for this civilization whether it be natural causes or the predictions of the bible ?



It was your life to waste as you chose. That you don't know any better means that you are satisfied to spend your life as the servant of your religious masters. Others prefer to be masters of their own lives. That is what makes this a great nation. The freedom to rid oneself of the mental shackles of religion.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Mom said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


kinda, the version we see today was. in 1932 or 33.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
> ...


everybody likes a good fantasy!
even though you won't admit it, the more fantastical parts of Christianity or any religion are it's major draw.
come on, who wouldn't want to live forever free of illness or infirmity in a place of beauty where you could do anything you wanted, forever.
that's a theme common to all faiths.
too bad it isn't reality.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> QUOTE:
> 
> Of course I haven't proven that God does not exist! 90 pages in to your 'Proof of God' thread and nobody has proven that He's real either!
> 
> ...


is it just me, or does this sound or read like a veiled threat ,you know, a my way or the highway story to scare the ignorant.?


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
> ...


love it when you asshats pontificate


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> tipofthespear said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE:
> ...



All religion is fear based. Either you embrace the cult's dogma or you are an outcast doomed to spend eternity in torment. Mind control on the most primitive level of all.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do some think I wasted my life believing in the creator ?  trying my best to live by his laws and passing that on to my 8 children ?
> 
> I assure you I have had a great life and I give thanks to the Almighty for this life even though it is no comparison to the life that is coming in my view.
> 
> Do you know that 1 out of every 5 Americans believe that we are on the edge of the end for this civilization whether it be natural causes or the predictions of the bible ?



You're right.  It was presumptuous and wrong of me to use the phrase 'wasted life'.  That's not for me to judge and I apologize.



All I can say is that a scary freedom blossomed within me when I finally put the ancient stories in to perspective, and in my humble opinion, the one life we're guaranteed is too fucking short to bet it all on the promise of 72 virgins in the next.  (or whatever ancient story promise floats a Monkeys boat)


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


bullshit :

The history of the Earth concerns the development of the planet Earth from its formation to the present day.[1][2] Nearly all branches of natural science have contributed to the understanding of the main events of the Earth's past. The age of Earth is approximately one-third of the age of the universe. An immense amount of biological and geological change has occurred in that time span.

Earth formed around 4.54 billion (4.54×109) years ago by accretion from the solar nebula. Volcanic outgassing likely created the primordial atmosphere, but it contained almost no oxygen and would have been toxic to humans and most modern life. Much of the Earth was molten because of extreme volcanism and frequent collisions with other bodies. One very large collision is thought to have been responsible for tilting the Earth at an angle and forming the Moon. Over time, the planet cooled and formed a solid crust, allowing liquid water to exist on the surface. The first life forms appeared between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. Photosynthetic life appeared around 2 billion years ago, enriching the atmosphere with oxygen. Life remained mostly small and microscopic until about 580 million years ago, when complex multicellular life arose. During the Cambrian period it experienced a rapid diversification into most major phyla.

Biological and geological change has been constantly occurring on our planet since the time of its formation. Organisms continuously evolve, taking on new forms or going extinct in response to an ever-changing planet. The process of plate tectonics has played a major role in the shaping of Earth's oceans and continents, as well as the life they harbor. The biosphere, in turn, has had a significant effect on the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet, such as the formation of the ozone layer, the proliferation of oxygen, and the creation of soil.
 the above is fact 
what YWC POSTED IS NOT.
THESES ARE HIS SOURCES 
Articles with keyword natural-processes-origin-of - Answers in Genesis...

Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?

BELOW ARE TWO NONCREDITED QUOTES FROM THOSE SITES 

  A reducing atmosphere is merely an assumption not supported by the physical evidence. The evidence points to the fact that the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere. There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earths oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.

If there were no oxygen in the early atmosphere, another fatal problem arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist, and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.

 Not only are they totally inaccurate but neither site  does any testing or experimentation to bolster their bullshit.
if that's not enough consider the fact that YWC plagiarized them  in an attempt to mislead other posters in to thinking they were his own...


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


do you have to take off your shoes for that?


----------



## numan (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Now this is funny stuff... so NOW you accept spiritual nature and existence? I thought it was all in our heads? Imaginations run wild? Mass delusions? Something we invented to explain the unexplained? Now you come along and say, it's real, you believe in it... just not the 'incarnation' that I believe.  Rich! Very rich!
> 
> What you have proven is, most humans are intrinsically tied to spiritual connection, whether they admit it or not. I have often said; Atheists are sometimes bigger believers in god than some Christians. I believe they KNOW god exists, and their whole shtick is based on inner-anger toward the god they KNOW exists. It's why they spend so much time in these threads, trying to disavow god.


First, *I DON'T BELIEVE*...period.

Second, I don't think what you believe is "spiritual" at all. 

*MAGIC WORDS OF "POOF, POOF PIFFLES"*





.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Your only words were "Bullshit"

The rest of your post were quotes from take your pick.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...anding+of+the+main+events+of+the+Earth's+past.

  plagiarize much Daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



You need to grab a dictionary and learn some new terms


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > tipofthespear said:
> ...



You should know.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


in my case it was a mistake. was too busy showcasing your fraud.  
in yours it's an ongoing charade .
 I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..


besides it doesn't make me any less right.
you on the other hand....


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I also love it when you think you're being clever which is always and never.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your last attempt at being intelligent lol. post 1299 I am sure i can find more if i check every post you attempt to sound intelligent 

Liar.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...philosophers+such+as+Henri+Bergson,+Nietzsche


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Sorry what I stated was a fact and has been noted as such. Your side keeps ducking the hard questions because they know they had a hole shot in their theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

Thanks for being you daws I will now ignore you once again lol.


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..

 again a mistake unlike, your ongoing fraud. 

btw I could write a book on  you failed attempts to feign first hand knowledge and expertize on these threads.
the difference is I can make mistakes as I don't claim to be something I'm not.
on the other hand, you.....


----------



## daws101 (May 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge!  it's not your theory and it's wrong.


----------



## HUGGY (May 21, 2013)

Believe me when I say I wish that violence wasnt necessary. But violence is the price we pay to accomplish a greater good. As heroes, we choose to protect that good with our lives.
Superman 

Youre everything thats good about the human race.  You showed me what it means to be close to someone.  You inspire me to be betterto work harder for a better tomorrow.  You represent everything Im supposed to believe inI was sent here to find youto be with you

Superman making the biggest mistake of his life....


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nope you are a dishonest turd and I am everything I claimed to be.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Take your pick several sources on that google search said what you said word for word lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Astrology was not my major but explain how what I stated was wrong ?


----------



## BreezeWood (May 21, 2013)

numan said:


> I see, from a public point of view, spiritual existence revealed most clearly -- certainly not in religion!! -- but in mathematics -- a concrete, infinite, miraculously detailed and harmonious reality from beyond the boundaries of the physical universe -- though it is, to some degree, manifested in the way physical reality is structured.
> 
> .




*spiritual existence revealed most clearly - (but) in mathematics - though it is, to some degree, manifested in the way physical reality is structured*.



there is no mathematics to the physical reality of the Garden

certainly not in the Bible religion but neither in mathematics (shame the Atheist) is spiritual existence revealed, as nar a similar blade of Grass has ever been the same for the past 750 million years nor will they be for all eternity. and similarly not possible a structured physical reality for an individual Spirit as proven likewise by the dissimilarities of all life forms similar or not in the past, present or for all eternity.


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Again you just repeat yourself knowing you are wrong all along. Darwin shot down the IC argument with evolution. Shooting down IC does not make it a "principal of the argument" in evolutionary theory as you pompously claim.

None of the crap you said about human eyes being different than the evolving eyes is true either. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. When focused light reaches your retina it triggers a complex chemical reaction in the light-sensitive rod and cone cells. Rods contain a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple," and cones contain chemicals called color pigments. These chemicals undergo a transformation that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain through the optic nerve. This happens with eyespots, eyecups, eyecups that have evolved into pinholes, pinholes that have evolved a lens, and on and on to the human eye. They all use a chemical reaction to the light to generate an electrical impulse to the optic nerve.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, you haven't really gone into it, but let's not hide behind individual personality here, you are well aware of the arguments and positions taken, and what I am addressing. 



> Anyway, your description of the difficulties involved in life arising on this planet only highlights why any assumption that there should be an abundance of life in this solar system seems silly to me.  There are numerous conditions necessary for life on Earth that are not present on other planets/moons in our solar system.  Are they present on other planets in the universe?  It seems probable based on the astronomically (pun intended) large number of planets we've observed, and the further number we extrapolate from those observations.



I have not said that life can not exist elsewhere. I asked you why it seems silly to you, that life could exist elsewhere, given that all the ingredients are there. You see, there is this theory that life on Earth spontaneously sprang forth while the planet was in it's primordial phases, and once it took root, it used a process known as natural selection, to create the billions and billions of fascinating and amazing forms of life on the planet. All of this supposedly just happened by twist of fate, no outside force was present. My question is, why did it only happen here, in our solar system? Why don't see see ANY life elsewhere? 



> Life arising, at any time in the billions of years the universe is believed to exist, may be an exceedingly rare event.  Still, even if only 1 in every trillion planets or moons in the universe has life on it, there would be multiple places with life.  However, the odds of our seeing it would be appropriately small.
> 
> You say we have not found life elsewhere in our vast universe, and you are correct.  What you fail to mention, and in fact seem to imply isn't true, is that we have barely seen the tiniest portion of what the universe contains.  Our study of other planets is almost entirely done without enough detail to know if life might or might not exist on them.



Again, and please take note of this important detail: I HAVE NOT SAID THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE OR PROBABLE THAT LIFE EXISTS ELSEWHERE! We are TOLD the recipe for life on Earth is this simple to explain phenomenon that just happened, because all of the building blocks were present and came together under the right conditions.... I get that, but why is there no other signs of life, anywhere to be found, at all? Not even a microbe! Granted, we haven't even begun to look, but you'd think, if the recipe for life were so simple and easy to explain as happenstance, we'd find life everywhere we looked, to some degree, in some form. But zero, zilch, nadda. Even though, we have you science people telling us it's practically impossible that we won't discover life somewhere else... but we've not found it yet, and we can certainly see/explore a lot of places.  

Look... IF we looked out into our solar system, and we saw some plant life, vegetation, algae, in this place or that... maybe some bacteria on Mars... fungus on the moon... something... anything... THEN, I could accept the premise that all the necessary elements for life are found in the universe, and that life just happened to be more conducive to evolution and growth here, and that's how/why it all came to be. What I see is absolutely NO life, of any kind. This tells me that something special is happening, and it's very rare. 



> So again, the thought that because we have not found life on other worlds, it does not exist or even is unlikely to exist, is nothing but egocentric foolishness.



Likewise, it is egocentric foolishness to say that Science can't prove God's existence, especially if we objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. We don't know everything in Science. It's a never ending journey of discovery, and we don't know what we may find. Maybe God lives inside a black hole? Maybe the black hole is portal to heaven and everlasting life? 



> Considering how often the monotheistic religions of the world seem to try and push humility and man's insignificance in the grand scheme of things, I find that ironic.  Despite the wondrous advances mankind has made in recent history, our ability to find life elsewhere in the universe is still incredibly limited.



I don't want to argue religion here. I am not a religious person. I believe religions are simply more profound spiritual evidence of the existence of something greater than self. It is man's way of coping and comprehending with a very REAL connection. This is the important point you need to understand, because humans DO connect to something outside of the physical. They've been doing it since humans existed. 



> As to your claim that humanity is indisputably intrinsically tied to spirituality, that is and has been disputed.  Your inability to accept that doesn't change that it is in dispute, especially when the spiritual has been ill-defined at best.  In fact, I still await a definition from you for spiritual evidence, as do others in this thread.  Without proper definitions, the only conclusion I have been able to draw is that you consider spirituality something that you must believe in before you can explain it.  That kind of circular logic is worthless.



Circular reasoning doesn't necessarily mean it's "wrong." No one has been able to dispute over 70,000 years of discovery, ancient civilizations from all over the planet, all practicing some form of spirituality. Ceremonial rituals and burials, worshiping some higher power or force. We look at the pyramids in Egypt, technological wonders TODAY, let alone when they were constructed. Something is up with that, it's too profound and prevalent to be a fluke, imagination, delusion, fairy tale. 

Spiritual is very easily defined, that which is NOT physical. This is why it's impossible to prove with PHYSICAL evidence alone, it simply can not be done. In order to examine spiritual existence of a spiritual entity, you have to be able to evaluate the spiritual evidence, which is somewhat overwhelming. 70k years of spirituality in humans, accompanied by humanitarianism and civilization. Profound connection with some power greater than self for all our existence as a species. Billions of people who profess to have received blessings from something spiritual. Billions of people willing to die for their spiritual belief rather than abandon it. Form and function of the entire system of life on our planet, how it interconnects in harmony of nature. Every organism has pattern of mechanical design that isn't explained at all, along with properties of things like gravity and electricity, things that we understand HOW they work, we can't explain WHY.  Science itself, is spiritual evidence of god. 

But you revealed why you must continue closing your mind to spiritual evidence, it's because you dislike religion and people who have religious beliefs. For you, and so many like you, this is all about disdain and hatred of religion, and the God of Abraham. I make no distinction as to what "form" god adheres to, I don't need to do this in order to objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence. I find that our planet and life is remarkable and special, and that humans are endowed with spiritual connection because they are the stewards of this special and unique place we call Earth. My personal connection with spirituality transcends "faith" because it's something I know, and not just a belief.


----------



## Boss (May 21, 2013)

> Again you just repeat yourself knowing you are wrong all along. Darwin shot down the IC argument with evolution. Shooting down IC does not make it a "principal of the argument" in evolutionary theory as you pompously claim.
> 
> None of the crap you said about human eyes being different than the evolving eyes is true either. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. When focused light reaches your retina it triggers a complex chemical reaction in the light-sensitive rod and cone cells. Rods contain a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple," and cones contain chemicals called color pigments. *These chemicals undergo a transformation that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain through the optic nerve.* This happens with eyespots, eyecups, eyecups that have evolved into pinholes, pinholes that have evolved a lens, and on and on to the human eye. They all use a chemical reaction to the light to generate an electrical impulse to the optic nerve.



...Which does NOT happen with a simple photoreceptor spot. 

The processes are entirely different and operate/function in a different way. The retina doesn't even exist with a photoreceptor spot, the spot IS the retina, for all intents and purposes. It transmits signals through purely chemical reactions in the brain to detect presence of light. There is no Darwinist basis to get from there to a 'pinhole' because the system would have no need for such a thing. The pinhole produces an upside-down image for the retina, which doesn't exist in a photoreceptor spot. What can it do with an upside-down image, when it's purpose it to detect light? Again, the way you are explaining the "evolution" of a human eye here, is more remarkable and miraculous than any god or intelligent designer. You have evolution creating things that it has no way of knowing is needed, changing entire systems to accommodate new innovations it comes up with on the fly, and it's the freaking miracle of natural selection at work!


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


First of all, you don't know what has been discovered and kept secret by the government. There are plenty of stories of UFOs and aliens just like your "spiritual" evidence. Secondly, why does all life have to be the same as our carbon based life? There could be other forms of life all around us that we just can't recognize. And finally, most of what you said is specially needed for life, like tides, the atmosphere, etc, are not so important. There are living organisms at the ocean floor so deep that no light or tide can reach them who live off the sulphur spewed from volcanic vents on the ocean floor. Life is quite tenacious and adaptive. Hell, there are bacteria that live in the tiniest of gaps in deep granitic and basaltic formations that metabolize hydrogen.


----------



## edthecynic (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Again you just repeat yourself knowing you are wrong all along. Darwin shot down the IC argument with evolution. Shooting down IC does not make it a "principal of the argument" in evolutionary theory as you pompously claim.
> >
> > None of the crap you said about human eyes being different than the evolving eyes is true either. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. When focused light reaches your retina it triggers a complex chemical reaction in the light-sensitive rod and cone cells. Rods contain a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple," and cones contain chemicals called color pigments. *These chemicals undergo a transformation that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain through the optic nerve.* This happens with eyespots, eyecups, eyecups that have evolved into pinholes, pinholes that have evolved a lens, and on and on to the human eye. They all use a chemical reaction to the light to generate an electrical impulse to the optic nerve.
> 
> ...


All you do is repeat your debunked BS over and over which does not make it any less debunked BS.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. Groups of such cells are termed "eyespots", and have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times. *These eyespots permit animals to gain only a very basic sense of the direction and intensity of light, but not enough to discriminate an object from its surroundings.*
Developing an optical system that can discriminate the direction of light to within a few degrees is apparently much more difficult, and only six of the thirty-something phyla possess such a system. However, these phyla account for 96% of living species. 
These complex optical systems started out as the multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle.

Eye Evolution???
Can only detect absence and presence of light
flat light sensitive patches (simple photoreceptors): Euglena
cupped light sensitive spots: Planaria

With definite images
pinhole with no lens: Nautilus
simple and compound eye : arthropoda
camera eyes (with lens): vertebrate e.g. humans ; cephalopoda e.g.octopus, squid

SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS ----- e.g. Planaria

Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches.

*Features:
1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina
2.sense cells in contact with retina cells

Use: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry.*

PINHOLE EYES ----- e.g. Nautilus

Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity.

*Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens

Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus*.


----------



## Montrovant (May 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.

It is expecting life to exist elsewhere in the solar system that I have questioned.  My reasons for this are that it takes some specific conditions for life as we know it to survive and other planets don't (so far as we can tell) have all of the correct conditions, and that just based on probability, unless you think life should arise on nearly every planet or moon in the universe, there are few enough of those in the solar system that more than one would possibly be an anomaly.

In other words, while I think it's likely that life exists or existed elsewhere in the universe, I don't think there is a good reason to assume that it should also exist elsewhere in the solar system, however it may have begun.

The fact that humanity has felt the need to believe in the spiritual is in no way proof of the existence of the spiritual.  

If spiritual means not physical, there is no known way to observe the spiritual.  That being the case, there is no way to prove the existence of the spiritual.  It is entirely based on belief with no objective evidence, only subjective.  Humans perceive the physical universe.  We have not determined any way to observe anything else that I'm aware of.  Unless you can show how some part of the body can observe things other than matter and energy, or some repeatable effect the spiritual has on the physical world, your claims are entirely subjective.

The only person you can prove anything to with totally subjective evidence is yourself.

The reason I have 'closed my mind' to the spiritual is because I require evidence, or at least what I consider a trustworthy source, in order to believe something exists.  You have provided neither.


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.
> 
> It is expecting life to exist elsewhere in the solar system that I have questioned.  My reasons for this are that it takes some specific conditions for life as we know it to survive and other planets don't (so far as we can tell) have all of the correct conditions, and that just based on probability, unless you think life should arise on nearly every planet or moon in the universe, there are few enough of those in the solar system that more than one would possibly be an anomaly.
> 
> In other words, while I think it's likely that life exists or existed elsewhere in the universe, I don't think there is a good reason to assume that it should also exist elsewhere in the solar system, however it may have begun.



I don't know how to explain what I am saying to you, if you can't comprehend what I am writing. Yes, it takes some very special and unique conditions for life to exist, in fact, we only know of one place in the universe it does exist. But you would think, being that all the ingredients for the cake are present, and the recipe is so easy, we'd see at least some inkling of life, somewhere nearby. You're right, the planets are not hospitable... but why aren't they? All the same ingredients, a few of them should have at least been able to spurt out simple organisms of some kind, develop a stable atmosphere, something, anything! 

We are expected to believe that life originated naturally, out of primordial soup or whatever, and all of this miraculous life just amazingly sprang forth... naturally... nothing else needed. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence this happened anywhere else. You say, "well it just so happens" that we had all the right conditions to support life... okay, but then, most life cycles depend on seasons and tides, which wouldn't exist if not for the moon colliding with Earth, putting it in a distinctly wobbly orbit, which creates seasons. If the moon didn't create tides, much of the ocean life couldn't exist. Seasons and tides... two more "it just so happens" to consider. Then... "it just so happens" that life we observe around us is in harmonious order, interdependent, following a form and function... more "it just so happens" to think about. Now, we get to the question of how there came to be billions of life forms, and they "just so happened" to evolve into place from other living things and then seemingly "just so happened" to stop, because we no longer see new genera emerging from other genera. But most amazing of all, it "just so happens" the only critters on the planet capable of pulling itself out of the jungles to achieve extraordinary things in comparison to other forms of life.... "just so happens," they are also profoundly attached to a spiritual belief in something greater than self. 

At some point, don't we have to stop believing in coincidence? 




> The fact that humanity has felt the need to believe in the spiritual is in no way proof of the existence of the spiritual.



Oh, no one said it is proof, we've been over this. "Proof" is dependent on your perception of what proves something, and since you don't believe in spiritual existence, there is no proof for you. Darwin would suggest that it's evidence, that a species has exhibited a particular inherent behavior for all of it's existence, of something fundamental to the species. So whether spiritual is "real" or not, humans most certainly can't exist without believing it is real, and paying homage to it. We've done it all our existence, it can't be stomped out, ridiculed out, mocked out, educated out... Human spirituality still remains.

You say it's not proof, I say your mind is closed to spiritual proof. 



> If spiritual means not physical, there is no known way to observe the spiritual.  That being the case, there is no way to prove the existence of the spiritual.  It is entirely based on belief with no objective evidence, only subjective.  Humans perceive the physical universe.



No, this is where you are fundamentally wrong. Humans perceive both the physical and spiritual. We exist in the physical universe, but we have an intrinsic and unfettered connection with the spiritual universe. There is no way to prove the spiritual with only physical evidence, NONE! There never will be, because it is a logic dichotomy! Once you have proven God with physical evidence, God ceases to be a "spiritual" entity! From that moment forward, God will forever be a PHYSICAL entity, defined by physical evidence of existence. So you can see why this is not ever going to happen, right? 



> We have not determined any way to observe anything else that I'm aware of.  Unless you can show how *some part of the body can observe things other than matter and energy*, or some repeatable effect the spiritual has on the physical world, your claims are entirely subjective.



Your HEART! Your SOUL! Your MIND! There is nothing 'subjective' about those, we all have them. The "repeatable effect" is humanity. It is what enabled mankind to emerge from the jungles, form civilized societies, establish morals, become humanitarian creatures. As I said, the spiritual evidence is strong and overwhelming, which is why you must reject it...even in the face of being totally illogical in the process. 



> The only person you can prove anything to with totally subjective evidence is yourself.



And the only person who can open your mind to spiritual understanding is you. 



> The reason I have 'closed my mind' to the spiritual is because I require evidence, or at least what I consider a trustworthy source, in order to believe something exists.  You have provided neither.



I know the reason, I stated it within the first two paragraphs of the OP, back on page 1 of the thread, it was deliberately the FIRST point I made. You require some kind of PHYSICAL evidence or proof, of the PHYSICAL existence (because you can't imagine any other kind of existence), regarding a SPIRITUAL entity. As we've established, this is never going to happen. But unless you see a physical proof of God, it can never be proven to you. 

In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence (or presence) of a spiritual entity, we must be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, which you've completely closed your mind to. Go read the OP, I made this observation to begin the argument.


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.
> ...



Your circular reasoning is hilarious.  In order to believe in the spiritual, you must first.....believe in the spiritual!  

You say I have closed my mind to the spiritual, after saying the spiritual is made up of something which cannot be objectively observed.  You may as well say I have closed my mind to Santa Clause, or Vishnu, or the Force.  

I wonder, how is it that the spiritual can see and affect the physical, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true?

I notice you keep attempting to insert Darwin into your posts, as though assuming you have any idea what he would think of your arguments might lend them weight with those who don't already believe as you do.  First, I think that that kind of speculation is pretty worthless; the long-dead cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of such claims.  Second, it's a bit funny because Darwin, while he may have been the father of evolutionary theory, got a number of things wrong.

You say the heart, soul and mind can all perceive things other than the physical.  The heart perceives nothing; it is but a muscle which pumps blood.  The word really means emotions in the sense you appear to be using it, which are a product of the mind.  And I have seen no evidence of a soul, so I cannot agree that it is something we all have.  As to the mind, your claim that the human brain can perceive things not in the realm of the physical is, again, nothing but a completely subjective belief.  There is no objective evidence of it.  We can certainly imagine things, but that doesn't mean they exist independent of our imaginings.  Unless you are trying to say the spiritual is created by the imaginings of intelligent life, I continue to disagree and await any actual evidence other than your unsubstantiated word.

In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence of a spiritual entity, it (or the reactions caused by it) must be objectively observable.  As your definition of the spiritual doesn't allow for this, no, there can be no objective evaluation.

To get back to the whole life on other planets theme, you are oversimplifying enormously.  All the ingredients are present and the recipe is easy?  Who said the creation of life is 'easy'?  The same elements may be present on other planets and moons in the solar system, but the conditions are not likely the same as they were on Earth when life first appeared.

I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that life occurred naturally.  I have no idea if life may have been created or not.  Aliens could have seeded the planet, a god or gods may have created life, or it may have arisen through spontaneous reaction.  

Was it coincidence that the proper materials and conditions were here for life?  It certainly could be.  Again, when you take into account the vastness of the universe and the huge number of planets and moons within it, and the time it has possibly existed for, it becomes less and less difficult to imagine life arising spontaneously SOMEWHERE.  And of course, it would take an intelligent form of life to eventually wonder how it could have happened where it did, why that particular planet, etc. etc.  That you can look back and consider it overly coincidental might be an inevitable consequence of the arising of intelligent life. 

That much of humanity has believed in the supernatural can be used as evidence that the supernatural exists.  On the other hand, it can be used as evidence simply that humans are beings of imagination.  We see something we don't understand, we want an explanation, we create one.  Add in our often flawed perceptions and it is not difficult to see why people have always believed in the spiritual or supernatural.  

Again, your evidence and arguments are based almost entirely on your subjective views.


----------



## Mom (May 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Your circular reasoning is hilarious.  In order to believe in the spiritual, you must first.....believe in the spiritual!



Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you. 



> You say I have closed my mind to the spiritual, after saying the spiritual is made up of something which cannot be objectively observed.  You may as well say I have closed my mind to Santa Clause, or Vishnu, or the Force.



I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual. 



> I wonder, how is it that the spiritual can see and affect the physical, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true?



Again, we have over 70k years of evidence that billions of people most certainly have spiritually connected to something. You see, this is where you are becoming confused. You assume, since you refuse to see spiritual evidence, no one else is able to. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, it's right there in front of you, but you continue to refuse to accept spiritual evidence. 



> I notice you keep attempting to insert Darwin into your posts, as though assuming you have any idea what he would think of your arguments might lend them weight with those who don't already believe as you do.  First, I think that that kind of speculation is pretty worthless; the long-dead cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of such claims.  Second, it's a bit funny because Darwin, while he may have been the father of evolutionary theory, got a number of things wrong.



Oh I know Darwin got things wrong, namely, his explanation of how a complex human eye evolved. He admits that if the eye can't be explained through natural selection, it can't be the product of evolution. Well, what he explained, and what many scientist believed until recently, is that a photoreceptor cell was a predecessor to the human eye, but the systems are completely different and work in a different way. The eye could not evolve the way Darwin explained. 

I am not speculating anything with regard to Darwin, I've read his book. I understand the principles of natural selection and evolution, and I know that it simply can't have the predictive power to "know" what parts are needed before they are needed. IF natural selection IS this powerful, it is more of a miracle than God or an intelligent designer. 



> You say the heart, soul and mind can all perceive things other than the physical.  The heart perceives nothing; it is but a muscle which pumps blood.  The word really means emotions in the sense you appear to be using it, which are a product of the mind.  And I have seen no evidence of a soul, so I cannot agree that it is something we all have.  As to the mind, your claim that the human brain can perceive things not in the realm of the physical is, again, nothing but a completely subjective belief.  There is no objective evidence of it.  We can certainly imagine things, but that doesn't mean they exist independent of our imaginings.  Unless you are trying to say the spiritual is created by the imaginings of intelligent life, I continue to disagree and await any actual evidence other than your unsubstantiated word.



All you are doing is confirming the point I made in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. This has been established, it was the very FIRST point I made in my argument, I don't understand why you continue to reaffirm it. There IS objective evidence for people who believe in spiritual nature. Billions and billions have attested to this, some went to their graves fighting to protect their spiritual beliefs. You believe there is no objective evidence because you reject spiritual evidence. I am not saying that to be insulting or rude, just stating a fact of life... you don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, you mind is closed to it, so you obviously can not see spiritual evidence, and dismiss it as imagination. 



> In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence of a spiritual entity, it (or the reactions caused by it) must be objectively observable.  As your definition of the spiritual doesn't allow for this, no, there can be no objective evaluation.



The only way to objectively observe spiritual evidence, is to believe and accept spiritual nature. Billions and billions have done this, and because you can't do this, doesn't mean others can't. My definition of spiritual is "non-physical." I never claimed it couldn't be objectively observed and evaluated. It simply can't meet your criteria of providing physical evidence, because it isn't physical in nature. 



> To get back to the whole life on other planets theme, you are oversimplifying enormously.  All the ingredients are present and the recipe is easy?  Who said the creation of life is 'easy'?  The same elements may be present on other planets and moons in the solar system, but the conditions are not likely the same as they were on Earth when life first appeared.



Well, the people who don't believe in intelligent design or creationism, claim that the miracle of life sprang forth from primordial soup when the planet was cooling. Then they posit a theory for abiogenesis, where all life sprang forth miraculously from a single cell organism. Were WE the only place around who got the primordial soup? Just so happened? We went down that road, there are a LOT of "just so happened" events to ponder. If any of them had "not so happened" we wouldn't have life on Earth. 

You missed my question to you... WHY are the conditions not appropriate on other planets? Same universe, same materials available, same relative environment in the vacuum of space, why didn't other planets form atmospheres with layers to protect life from radiation and ultraviolet rays? 'Just so happens' we were the lucky planet? Now, we haven't looked at much of the universe, but we have looked at many planets and moons, and the only place in the universe we have found life is here. If life were some natural phenomenon, it would be happening elsewhere, all around us on other planets, which had the same elements to work with as Earth had, as we are all part of the same universe. But that is not what we see. 



> I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that life occurred naturally.  I have no idea if life may have been created or not.  Aliens could have seeded the planet, a god or gods may have created life, or it may have arisen through spontaneous reaction.



At least your mind is open to possibility. That's a start. The thread title is posed as a question. I did this to illustrate, it is a question that can only be answered if we are willing to accept and evaluate spiritual evidence. This is needed because we must first establish terminology, so that we are talking about the same things. You see, if someone does not believe in a spiritual nature, they can't process terms like "exist" in their minds. To "exist" can only mean, to physically exist, if you don't recognize spiritual existence. It's an illogical dichotomy for a spiritual god to physically exist. It can never meet that criteria, or it is no longer spiritual in nature. 



> Was it coincidence that the proper materials and conditions were here for life?  It certainly could be.  Again, when you take into account the vastness of the universe and the huge number of planets and moons within it, and the time it has possibly existed for, it becomes less and less difficult to imagine life arising spontaneously SOMEWHERE.  And of course, it would take an intelligent form of life to eventually wonder how it could have happened where it did, why that particular planet, etc. etc.  That you can look back and consider it overly coincidental might be an inevitable consequence of the arising of intelligent life.



At some point, continued coincidence starts becoming suspect, wouldn't you agree? If you went with a friend to Vegas, and they started gambling and winning, and this went on all night, you'd say... hey, it's a coincidence, the got lucky... but then, a second and third night, same thing, weeks roll by, they can't lose. A month later, they are making headline news as the luckiest person ever, they haven't lost yet... they keep winning every time... at what point to do you admit that it's not just luck and coincidence? I can accept that one or maybe two things, happened by coincidence. But when I see literally millions of things that had to happen to a certain degree and order, in harmony with other things happening, over and over for millions of years, the astounding nature of our climate system and weather, the wondrous beauty we see in nature, the intricacy of mechanical engineering of the simplest organisms. Life is amazing and miraculous, it simply did not happen by accident. 



> That much of humanity has believed in the supernatural can be used as evidence that the supernatural exists.  On the other hand, it can be used as evidence simply that humans are beings of imagination.  We see something we don't understand, we want an explanation, we create one.  Add in our often flawed perceptions and it is not difficult to see why people have always believed in the spiritual or supernatural.
> 
> Again, your evidence and arguments are based almost entirely on your subjective views.



You dismiss spirituality as "imagination."  As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination. 

To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.


----------



## Mom (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Your circular reasoning is hilarious.  In order to believe in the spiritual, you must first.....believe in the spiritual!
> ...



What's spiritual evidence?


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

> What's spiritual evidence?



Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it.  But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.


----------



## Mom (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> > What's spiritual evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it.  But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.



cmon man, sum it up for me, I don't have time for 37 pages.


----------



## HUGGY (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> > What's spiritual evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it.  But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.



*DON'T READ THE THREAD !!!!*

*You will NEVER get back that time in your life !!!!*

                               

True Story


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Mom said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > What's spiritual evidence?
> ...


To sum it up, spiritual evidence is what Bossy says it is, period. Bossy is the Boss of spirituality. If you question him in any way, then you do not believe in spiritual evidence.

He uses 70k years of physical beings being spiritual as evidence that God exists, not that physical beings existed first and their belief in the spiritual followed their physical existence. He has nothing that proves the spiritual existed before the physical beings, he just pontificates it is so, and he has given himself the final say, and if you don't submit to his absolute authority you don't accept spiritual evidence.

You can point out that you believe in spiritual evidence and give as an example that as a musician you experience the spirit of the composer in his music. But if you point out that the composer had to exist first before his spirit lives in his music, you are told you do not believe in spiritual evidence.

You only believe in spiritual evidence if you agree with Bossy.
Get it?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Planet earth is full of diverse life and life that has the ability to adapt. What does life having the ability to adapt prove ? Why is this planet so unique from other planets like it was designed for life ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Prove that this planet is unique in the universe.

The fact that life can adapt to the most extreme conditions proves that you don't need specially designed conditions for life to exist and thrive.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.
> ...



The big bang would have surely put all the ingredients for the cake on nearby planets you're correct. Yes at some point we have to rule out coincidence someone that is using logic that is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Everyone uses circular reasoning we are human and that is our thought pattern.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

Mom said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You don't need to read all 37 pages.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Where did the ability to adapt originate from ? 

What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets | Space.com


What is there to debate there is no planet like earth.


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The ability to adapt is innate to life.

From your link:

*Not-so-special Earth*

As our planet-hunting technology improves, many planet hunters expect to find Earth's twin. The search has led scientists to debate whether Earth is really as special as we think it is.

"In the past 10 years, everything has been pointing in the direction of, 'Hey, the solar system, which we thought was unique, is not unique at all,'" said Alan Boss.

Boss and many other scientists think it's likely that some form of life exists on some of those countless other planets out there.

*"Certainly there will be other planets that support life," he said. "I think life is actually quite common. I think we're going to find there are literally billions of them in the galaxy."*


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I knew you would lock in on the conjecture part of the web page. You do realize they are debating it that they do not have any proof ? For right now this planet is unique correct ?  Kinda like a theory that this planet is unique is the best answer we have at this point correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



INNATE is not a good answer for the ability of organisms to adapt. This sounds like purposeful design to me.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


if that were true, then why did you not credit those quotes?
you are hardly all you claim to be.
as you left out plagiarist,  distorter of fact, braggart, willful ignorance and pseudoscientist. Just a name a few.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I never claimed they were my words....
you on the other hand are so fucking arrogant you actually believed that no one would call you on it . 
show some dignity and man up !


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ok ! here we go. Astrology



Astrology consists of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other planetary objects at the time of their birth. Many cultures have attached importance to astronomical events, and the Indians, Chinese, and Mayans developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations.

Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, with roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications.[1] Through most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]

Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.[4]:424 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.[5]:249[6]


Astrology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not to be confused with Astronomy.



This article is about the scientific study of celestial objects. For other uses, see Astronomy (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Astrology, the belief system claiming that celestial phenomena influence the lives and behavior of humans.

 A giant Hubble mosaic of the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant
Astronomy is a natural science that deals with the study of celestial objects (such as moons, planets, stars, nebulae, and galaxies); the physics, chemistry, mathematics, and evolution of such objects; and phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth (such as supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic background radiation). A related but distinct subject, cosmology, is concerned with studying the universe as a whole.[1]

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Prehistoric cultures left behind astronomical artifacts such as the Egyptian monuments and Nubian monuments, and early civilizations such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science. Historically, astronomy has included disciplines as diverse as astrometry, celestial navigation, observational astronomy, and the making of calendars, but professional astronomy is nowadays often considered to be synonymous with astrophysics.[2]

During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented towards the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results, and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role, especially in the discovery and observation of transient phenomena.

Astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system which claims that human affairs are correlated with the positions of celestial objects. Although the two fields share a common origin they are now entirely distinct.[3]
Astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
anything else I can help you with bahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


speaking of lying, declaring that life was designed with zero proof is extremely dishonest..
the truth would be is you believe it was designed...


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another false declarative!


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Random chance sounds like purposeful design to you. Everything sounds like purposefully designed to you.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
 The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size. 
 Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side. 
 This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
 In conclusion, it is not a easy question because there are a lot of unknown details about the formation of the Moon, probably a violent impact between the Earth and an object roughly the size of Mars.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080212223000AAAOCHk


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


bump


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How many planets have we been able to study closely?

How many planets have we observed?

Do you really think we know that Earth is unique based on our incredibly limited experience?

We've been through this before YWC.  You are basically saying that, having picked up a handful of sand from the beach, and having seen one of the grains of sand being a different color than the others, that the differently colored grain of sand is unique on the entire beach.  No need to bother looking at the other trillion grains of sand, this tiny portion is all that's needed!


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


to add, our best technology can only take us to our closest neighbors and they're not home.


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you.



Circular reasoning may not mean you are wrong, but it does mean that attempting to discuss the subject is pointless.

Also, it is not the same with physical science.  It is entirely possible to see and acknowledge the existence of physical sciences without believing in their results.  No one needs to believe that scientific testing exists in order to see such a test.  



> I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.



I'm not sure if you understand objectivity.  If you must believe in it in order to observe it, it is not objectively observable.



> Again, we have over 70k years of evidence that billions of people most certainly have spiritually connected to something. You see, this is where you are becoming confused. You assume, since you refuse to see spiritual evidence, no one else is able to. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, it's right there in front of you, but you continue to refuse to accept spiritual evidence.



We have years of evidence that billions of people most certainly believe in something.  That something has varied pretty wildly.  You equate all supernatural beliefs to the spiritual and claim that since people have always believed in fantastic answers to the unexplained questions of life, there is a hidden realm of the spiritual that exists.  But that realm is only accessed by those who believe in it.




> Oh I know Darwin got things wrong, namely, his explanation of how a complex human eye evolved. He admits that if the eye can't be explained through natural selection, it can't be the product of evolution. Well, what he explained, and what many scientist believed until recently, is that a photoreceptor cell was a predecessor to the human eye, but the systems are completely different and work in a different way. The eye could not evolve the way Darwin explained.
> 
> I am not speculating anything with regard to Darwin, I've read his book. I understand the principles of natural selection and evolution, and I know that it simply can't have the predictive power to "know" what parts are needed before they are needed. IF natural selection IS this powerful, it is more of a miracle than God or an intelligent designer.



Of course there is no predictive power to natural selection.  That would require it to be something intelligent.  The idea behind natural selection, as I understand it, is that it is just an explanation for why certain creatures survive and others don't.  It is a concept, not a tangible thing.  So it cannot predict, or determine, or DO anything.  It is just a description.



> All you are doing is confirming the point I made in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. This has been established, it was the very FIRST point I made in my argument, I don't understand why you continue to reaffirm it. There IS objective evidence for people who believe in spiritual nature. Billions and billions have attested to this, some went to their graves fighting to protect their spiritual beliefs. You believe there is no objective evidence because you reject spiritual evidence. I am not saying that to be insulting or rude, just stating a fact of life... you don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, you mind is closed to it, so you obviously can not see spiritual evidence, and dismiss it as imagination.
> 
> 
> The only way to objectively observe spiritual evidence, is to believe and accept spiritual nature. Billions and billions have done this, and because you can't do this, doesn't mean others can't. My definition of spiritual is "non-physical." I never claimed it couldn't be objectively observed and evaluated. It simply can't meet your criteria of providing physical evidence, because it isn't physical in nature.



This is just a rehash of your previous silliness.  If you must believe in the spiritual to observe it, it is not objectively observable.  



> Well, the people who don't believe in intelligent design or creationism, claim that the miracle of life sprang forth from primordial soup when the planet was cooling. Then they posit a theory for abiogenesis, where all life sprang forth miraculously from a single cell organism. Were WE the only place around who got the primordial soup? Just so happened? We went down that road, there are a LOT of "just so happened" events to ponder. If any of them had "not so happened" we wouldn't have life on Earth.
> 
> You missed my question to you... WHY are the conditions not appropriate on other planets? Same universe, same materials available, same relative environment in the vacuum of space, why didn't other planets form atmospheres with layers to protect life from radiation and ultraviolet rays? 'Just so happens' we were the lucky planet? Now, we haven't looked at much of the universe, but we have looked at many planets and moons, and the only place in the universe we have found life is here. If life were some natural phenomenon, it would be happening elsewhere, all around us on other planets, which had the same elements to work with as Earth had, as we are all part of the same universe. But that is not what we see.



I don't know why conditions differ on various planets and moons.  That they do is, unlike your spiritual evidence, objectively observable.

As to your whole 'just so happens' repetitiveness, I've been over that already.  The odds of winning the lottery are pretty slim, but someone is constantly doing it.  We have observed so many planets and moons, and from those observations estimated there are so many more, that at least one planet having the proper conditions seems far less strange.  I don't know why Earth had the right conditions.

I don't know that other planets haven't had the same conditions as Earth.  Neither do you.  Humanity, as has been said, has directly observed only the tiniest portion of the universe.  There could be millions of planets that have had or currently have life in just our galaxy.  We simply can't tell with current technology.  But there is no reason to assume that a natural origin for life means that life should occur everywhere.  That's just asinine.



> At least your mind is open to possibility. That's a start. The thread title is posed as a question. I did this to illustrate, it is a question that can only be answered if we are willing to accept and evaluate spiritual evidence. This is needed because we must first establish terminology, so that we are talking about the same things. You see, if someone does not believe in a spiritual nature, they can't process terms like "exist" in their minds. To "exist" can only mean, to physically exist, if you don't recognize spiritual existence. It's an illogical dichotomy for a spiritual god to physically exist. It can never meet that criteria, or it is no longer spiritual in nature.



Why can't a god be both spiritual and physical in nature?  Certainly the entire concept of god is one of a being that created the physical universe, and often one that continues to affect the physical universe.  More, the concept of a soul is often that of a spiritual component to we physical humans.  Why can the spiritual and the physical be married in so many ways, but not in a god?




> At some point, continued coincidence starts becoming suspect, wouldn't you agree? If you went with a friend to Vegas, and they started gambling and winning, and this went on all night, you'd say... hey, it's a coincidence, the got lucky... but then, a second and third night, same thing, weeks roll by, they can't lose. A month later, they are making headline news as the luckiest person ever, they haven't lost yet... they keep winning every time... at what point to do you admit that it's not just luck and coincidence? I can accept that one or maybe two things, happened by coincidence. But when I see literally millions of things that had to happen to a certain degree and order, in harmony with other things happening, over and over for millions of years, the astounding nature of our climate system and weather, the wondrous beauty we see in nature, the intricacy of mechanical engineering of the simplest organisms. Life is amazing and miraculous, it simply did not happen by accident.



You can believe what you want.  No one can, at this point, say with certainty how life began.  It's not something I feel the need to argue.

I will say again, however, that your seeming problems with the unlikely odds of proper conditions for life seem strange to me given the numbers we are dealing with in something the size of the universe.




> You dismiss spirituality as "imagination."  As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination.
> 
> To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.



You have closed your mind to religion, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild.  See what I did there?  

If spirituality is man's imagination, that doesn't make us one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist.  In our experience it would make us what we are, the most intelligent.  What other life forms that we've seen can imagine answers to things they cannot explain?  Most animals may be incapable of any kind of imagining.  That would be an intellectual capacity in humans that other animals do not possess, that doesn't make us stupid.  It might make us wrong, but to be fair, it also might make us the only creatures trying to answer the kinds of questions we use our imaginations to create answers to in the first place. 

Oh, and I haven't actually dismissed spirituality as imagination.  I merely countered your argument that belief in the supernatural is evidence of a non-physical, spiritual existence.

When you have some evidence that doesn't require a person to believe in it before they can believe in it, get back to me.


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> How many planets have we been able to study closely?
> 
> How many planets have we observed?
> 
> ...



Not what is being said at all. Look at just the moon aspect... if the moon had not collided with Earth, sending it into a wobbling rotation, the planet would not have seasons. The seasons are of fundamental importance to almost all plant life, it is how they pollinate and reproduce. Other animals depend on plant life and couldn't' exist without it. If the moon had been larger or smaller, or struck the planet differently, the wobble and seasons would be much different. But the moon happened to be the perfect size and began orbiting Earth as a satellite, exerting not too much or too little gravitational counterforce, to create oceanic tides. Without the tides, many life forms in the sea could not exist, this is how they time reproduction. Had the moon been larger or came to orbit more closely, the tides would be massive and there would be little dry land. Further out, and lack of tide would have caused the oceans to stagnate. 

Any reasonable or objective analysis, has to conclude life on Earth would not be the same without the moon, and may not even exist at all. I'm sure some smarty will weigh in on this, and disagree, but no reasonable person can think life would be anything like we know it to be, if we didn't have seasons and tides naturally instructing life's process. 

Another thing to look at is our amazing atmosphere. While science geeks can explain how it works and how the atmosphere formed, they can't explain why we were so freaking lucky. You see, it *just so happens*, the elemental layers of the atmosphere protect all living things from deadly radiation and ultraviolet rays. Without the atmosphere, life could not exist on Earth. 

Finally, because of our proximity to the sun, and large vast oceans, convection currents are formed, which enables millions of other life forms, and again, provides vital reproductive elements that would not exist otherwise. Combine all of the things I've mentioned, and you get our climate. While there are certainly extremes, our climate compared to that of other planets, is quite stable. The most fascinating thing is, if we didn't have evaporation or rain, which is caused by the aforementioned anomalies, life could not survive. 

What we see is a concerted effort on part of nature, to make life possible on Earth. Some think this 'just so happens' to be the case, I believe it's too much coincidence to dismiss.


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How many planets have we been able to study closely?
> ...


It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of sulphur spewed by volcanic vents. 

Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What other planet is found to have life?


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What other planet have we planted our feet on and drilled into its core?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Was my question too difficult for you?


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Stupid, yes, difficult, no.

Let me put it another way, of all the planets we have thoroughly explored, 100% of them have life.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Thanks for your dishonesty.


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you.
> ...



No, it just means what it means. (Sorry, more circular reasoning) 

Attempting to prove god to someone who doesn't accept spiritual evidence, is indeed, pointless. This was the reason for making the point. It does no good to examine the question, "does god exist?" if the person you are asking, doesn't recognize spirituality, spiritual existence, spiritual nature, etc. 



> Also, it is not the same with physical science.  It is entirely possible to see and acknowledge the existence of physical sciences without believing in their results.  No one needs to believe that scientific testing exists in order to see such a test.



Not true. IF _(hypothetical)_ I believe that god controls gravity, it does not matter how many times you demonstrate gravity with experiments of science, I reject science, I believe god controls it, and nothing you can ever show me will change my mind. Science also requires faith, believe it or not. Science never makes any determination on anything. Humans have faith in what science has shown them, and form conclusion. 



> > I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you understand objectivity.  If you must believe in it in order to observe it, it is not objectively observable.



Nonsense, you have to believe in science to objectively observe it. You're not making sense. Now, if you DON'T believe in something, you can never objectively observe it. 



> We have years of evidence that billions of people most certainly believe in something.  That something has varied pretty wildly.  You equate all supernatural beliefs to the spiritual and claim that since people have always believed in fantastic answers to the unexplained questions of life, there is a hidden realm of the spiritual that exists.  But that realm is only accessed by those who believe in it.



That 'something' is fairly universal in concept. It may take on different incarnations, but the gist is, humans worship something greater than self, as a matter of inherent behavior. It's funny that you call this "fantastic answers" when I view the explanations for spontaneous natural origin to be fantastic. I think the idea that a creator is responsible, is a fairly simple answer, it's not fantastic at all. 

Also, it is a debunked myth that spirituality exists to "explain the unknown." How many "unknown questions" remain from ancient man, that modern science has yet to answer? Anything? Bueller? Bueller? Yet, we don't see a massive departure from our "crutch" as science has explained away all the mystery. We see relatively the same percentage of humans being spiritually connected. You can't explain this, because it defeats your theory. 

Well okay.... it's "fear of death!"  THAT's why man is so tied to spirituality! We don't know what happens to us after we die, so this is why we invented spirituality.... problem is, this doesn't align with nature in anything we observe with any other form of life. Dogs and cats don't worry about what happens when they die. All of the little snappy and easy dismissals of spirituality fail, and we are left with the fact that humans have always been devoutly spiritual and connected to something spiritual in nature. 



> Of course there is no predictive power to natural selection.  That would require it to be something intelligent.  The idea behind natural selection, as I understand it, is that it is just an explanation for why certain creatures survive and others don't.  It is a concept, not a tangible thing.  So it cannot predict, or determine, or DO anything.  It is just a description.



Exactly! So when people try to explain to me, how a photoreceptor spot, which is intended to detect light, managed to 'evolve' into a pinhole camera, it's not believable. Natural selection certainly didn't know how pinhole cameras work, so how is it responsible for such a transformation? Evolution is bound by limits, it can't predict and create. 



> I don't know why conditions differ on various planets and moons.  That they do is, unlike your spiritual evidence, objectively observable.
> 
> As to your whole 'just so happens' repetitiveness, I've been over that already.  The odds of winning the lottery are pretty slim, but someone is constantly doing it.  We have observed so many planets and moons, and from those observations estimated there are so many more, that at least one planet having the proper conditions seems far less strange.  I don't know why Earth had the right conditions.



The same person doesn't repeatedly win the lottery, if they did, you would conclude after three or four, that something was up with that, wouldn't you? Life on Earth is similar to the same person winning the lottery thousands of times. Now, you can choose to believe that person is just really lucky, or you can open your mind to the possibility something else is happening. 

You don't know why Earth had the right conditions, and no one else seems to know. But "why" is often a hard question for science to answer. It can explain the "how" part, and do a pretty good job of it, but it's the "why" part that science struggles with. This gives us "theories" which are based in sound general principles and observations, but theories can be wrong. Again, "faith" often comes into play regarding scientific theory, there are people here who will argue that a scientific theory is pretty much a "fact" when that is simply not true. 



> I don't know that other planets haven't had the same conditions as Earth.  Neither do you.  Humanity, as has been said, has directly observed only the tiniest portion of the universe.  There could be millions of planets that have had or currently have life in just our galaxy.  We simply can't tell with current technology.  But there is no reason to assume that a natural origin for life means that life should occur everywhere.  That's just asinine.



You are correct, I didn't mean to imply we had looked over the entire universe and found no signs of life. If you were somehow confused, let the record be clear, I never meant to imply such a thing. All I did, was introduce the question, WHY?  

If the origin of life was spontaneous and natural, and the abiogenesis theories are true, and all of this emerged from primordial soup, we should see at least some evidence of life out there. We don't even see atmospheres and conditions conducive for life. Maybe they exist and we've not discovered them? But you would think, if the ingredients are all over the universe, this miracle would be more abundantly present elsewhere. 



> Why can't a god be both spiritual and physical in nature?  Certainly the entire concept of god is one of a being that created the physical universe, and often one that continues to affect the physical universe.  More, the concept of a soul is often that of a spiritual component to we physical humans.  Why can the spiritual and the physical be married in so many ways, but not in a god?



Well, Christians believe that Jesus was god in physical form. So, certainly, god _could_ be both spiritual and physical, since that is the basis for Christianity. Interesting side note: When they mapped the human genome, all elements for what makeup a human being were accounted for, but there was a remaining fraction, I'm thinking it was like .004 or something, which could not ever be defined. It's part of our makeup, but we don't know what it is, and can't explain it. Some have speculated, perhaps this is our "soul?"  Again, don't get caught being egocentric, science has not determined everything yet. Anything, is possible with science, including physical proof of spiritual nature. 

I also want to address another point about the use of the word "god" here. What is meant? My OP argument does not define "god" in a traditional sense, but rather a metaphor. It is symbolic of whatever spiritual force man is connecting with, and has been connecting with since our origins. I do not profess to know the specific nature of that force, but I do not require this information to evaluate existence. Those who have rejected spiritual evidence, view "god" as something of an impossibility, because they cannot rationalize "existence" in any connotation other than physical. There certainly isn't a physically invisible man sitting on a cloud with a white beard and such. However, spiritual people believe in something spiritual, it doesn't have physical presence, it doesn't exist in a physical sense. 



> You can believe what you want.  No one can, at this point, say with certainty how life began.  It's not something I feel the need to argue.
> 
> I will say again, however, that your seeming problems with the unlikely odds of proper conditions for life seem strange to me given the numbers we are dealing with in something the size of the universe.



Yet, spiritual people will tell you with certainty, how life began. 

Yes, the universe is big and we've not explored much of it. Still, if life is spontaneous, able to spring forth from primordial soup and all... it would seem that we'd find some kind of life elsewhere, and we haven't. I'm not saying we won't, or that it's not possible, or that my argument is based on this, just that it's curious to me... why were WE so lucky? 



> > You dismiss spirituality as "imagination."  As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination.
> >
> > To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.
> 
> ...



If we're so smart, why would we create a mass delusion? 

No, I don't see what you did with religion there, it looks like you are attempting to mock me, but I stand by what I said. Religion is evidence of mankind's intrinsic connection to something spiritual in nature. In order for man to 'make sense' of this spiritual force it connects with, religions were created. Those are the product of imagination, the spiritual connection is real, not imagined. 



> Oh, and I haven't actually dismissed spirituality as imagination.  I merely countered your argument that belief in the supernatural is evidence of a non-physical, spiritual existence.
> 
> When you have some evidence that doesn't require a person to believe in it before they can believe in it, get back to me.



But it's not just simple "belief" in supernatural. That's the fundamental point you are missing here. It is a profound and intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, which man has connected to for all of it's existence. This is not a "belief" but an actual connection that is made between humans and something spiritual. I realize this is a hard point to accept when you don't "believe" but it's still a valid and legitimate point you need to consider. 

As for your final request, it would be totally impossible for me to ever give you any information you would recognize as believable evidence, if you didn't believe in it. I don't know how else to put that... if you want to call it 'circular reasoning' so be it. I call it common sense. Are you NOT required to believe in principles of science to believe a scientific principle? 

The definitive proof for a spiritual entity, is spiritual evidence. Those who accept spiritual evidence, have an overwhelming abundance of it to support the existence of god. For those who reject spiritual evidence, there will NEVER be enough evidence. It's illogical. It can't happen. Spiritual entities rely on spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence, and if they could be proven through physics, they would become "physical" entities.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 22, 2013)

Mom said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > What's spiritual evidence?
> ...



The OP is the *BLACK HOLE* of all peer reviewed scientific knowledge and irrefutable logic. It won't matter what facts you provide or carefully constructed reasoned arguments you make. All of them will disappear beyond the event horizon as if they never existed and the exact same boring "spiritual evidence" claptrap will be endlessly repeated. You have three choices, (a) you walk away and get on with your life, or (b) you submit to the *AUTHORITY OF BOSS* without question, or (c) you come to the realization that he is just a close minded bigot who resorts to insults whenever he is proven wrong.


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

I can't believe this continues.

Let me put it this way.  I want you to accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I cannot give you any evidence that his noodly appendages exist.  You will know he exists once you believe he exists.

Are you going to now believe?

On the other hand....if you say god is in control of gravity, that's fine.  I can still demonstrate gravity to you.  The difference is that you are coming to a conclusion based on observations we can both experience.  You don't have to believe in gravity to see the effects.

Your whole argument boils down to, 'because I say so'.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Again your main comment was the term " Bullshit "

Give it up you did the same thing here you did in the thread I called you on. What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it heck I posted the same thing in the creationism thread.

I would probably bet since you copy and paste so much crap from wiki that was your source for your quote above.


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of *sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.*
> 
> Human life may need special conditions, but life itself is not so demanding!



How do you suppose volcanoes erupt? 

If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of *sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.*
> ...



Seriously? You expect that it is possible for the Hubble telescope to spot microbial life at the bottom of an ocean on a planet circling a star hundreds of light years distant? There is no evidence (spiritual or factual) that you have even the slightest grasp of reality.


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How many planets have we been able to study closely?
> ...



Youre personalizing nature just as you personalize your gods.

Theres nothing to suggest that there is anything supernatural, supermagical or even special about existence. Natural law is the antithesis of "gods and your spirit worlds. You may think of chance (as it relates to life on earth), as randomness, when in fact natural law is decidedly non-random. All things being equal, natural law solves the same problems the same way every time. This invariance is the required property for order to emerge from chaos.

Formation of patterns does not indicate a personality or an intent. That is something theists and spiritualists wish to assign to it. That would be like saying a tornado has the intent to hit one house and by pass another. 

In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if _it can be shown_ that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Suggesting mystical spirits or gods have any sort of intent is asserted by you, and of course, for all your attempts to insist that a spirit world exists, you have never provided anything more than _because I say so_ as evidence for your claims.

Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. You simply refuse to supply any facts to support your claims to spirit worlds.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I can't believe this continues.
> 
> Let me put it this way.  I want you to accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I cannot give you any evidence that his noodly appendages exist.  You will know he exists once you believe he exists.
> 
> Are you going to now believe?



Nope, but my OP argument doesn't claim that I will get you to see the evidence. I readily admit, you are not going to see the evidence, you reject it completely and in it's entirety. I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy, it works very well in a religious debate because it interjects yet another human incarnation of god. However, in a debate about spirituality, the Spaghetti Monster doesn't fly...pardon the pun. You see, there isn't 70k years of evidence that man has worshiped a spaghetti monster, as a fundamental part of it's human behavior. IF that were the case, I would suggest that maybe there IS such an entity, and people aren't suffering from widespread mass delusions for the course of their existence. 



> On the other hand....if you say god is in control of gravity, that's fine.  I can still demonstrate gravity to you.  The difference is that you are coming to a conclusion based on observations we can both experience.  You don't have to believe in gravity to see the effects.
> 
> Your whole argument boils down to, 'because I say so'.



Demonstrate all you like, if I refuse to acknowledge or accept physical evidence, and maintain that "god did it" then you can never convince me. While you observe clear physical evidence, I reject that and observe the work of god. How do you get me to accept your evidence? 

You have closed your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and do not acknowledge spiritual evidence. Your brain does not comprehend spiritual existence, and conflates it with physical existence. This leads you to demand physical evidence to support something that is not physical in nature and by definition, is not supported with physical evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Are you that dense we argued this in the other thread lol. Still waiting on you to show what I quoted how it was not accurate as you claimed.


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?


"Spiritual" forces"?




> If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?


You do realize that the search for life beyond our own planet is truly, only a few decades old, beginning in earnest with radio telescopes, Hubble, supercomputers, etc.

Remember, it was you "spiritualists" who believed for millennia that various gods controlled what we know are natural forces, that the earth was the center of the solar system and that the earth was flat.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Now show how my quote was not accurate ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Only a hardened Ideologue will believe in coincidences over and over again


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Prove it


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > It is one thing to say that if we didn't have tides and seasons that LIFE on Earth would be different, as you did at first, but it is quite another to claim that nature is making an effort to make life POSSIBLE on Earth. As was already pointed out bacteria can live in almost any extreme condition without tides, seasons, the moon or whatever. It was also pointed out that on the deep ocean floor there is a whole ecosystem that lives without tide, season, moon and sun feeding off of *sulphur spewed by volcanic vents.*
> ...


Where else have you looked for it as thoroughly as you have looked for it here?????


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



To many things produced by the creator serves a purpose to believe it was left to Random chance is not worthy of my beliefs. You want to believe in miracles go ahead but who was it that produced your miracles ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
> The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.
> Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side.
> This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
> ...



Ms daws is copying and pasting like there is no tomorrow  now if he quotes anything that sounds sort of intelligent better check it if he does not credit the source.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Of course it is unique there is none like it is there ?


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe this continues.
> ...



There isnt 70,000 years of spirit worship.

Mankind has assigned various entities to explain natural processes that were not understood. Those entities were not necessarily the god-like spirits you wish them to be.

We can assign human frailties such as fear and ignorance to assignment of gods of thunder, lightning, etc. but various gods frequently took human form.



BTW, isn't it kinda' stating the obvious that (paraphrasing), something that is not physical in nature is not supported with physical evidence?

How convenient for your claims that they precludes evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (May 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?
> ...


Exactly! By the powerful but spiritual hand of the mighty but spiritual God Vulcan.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Why can't you just say no there is no life out there as far as we know ?


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Consider the affects of discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system  on Mars, perhaps. 

That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as creation is uniquely an earthly event. Although, you and I both know that some obscure hadith or Bible verse would eventually be discovered as describing the event. Ah, see, science proving the religious text. 

Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off planet Earth. This we are doing. What fundies / creationists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, gawd only knows.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
> The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.
> Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side.
> This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
> ...



Your math should be suffice to follow along and show that what you posted is nonsense.


http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I can't believe this continues.
> 
> Let me put it this way.  I want you to accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I cannot give you any evidence that his noodly appendages exist.  You will know he exists once you believe he exists.
> 
> ...




There's a wee bit more than that... 

There *is* one other piece of evidence offered:  The deistic claims made about an ancient rebel named Jesus in the stories penned 70+ years after his political death.

WYGD?   


If something sounds to fantastic to be true, it probably is...  And that probability goes up when the teller of the tale starts asking for money.


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe this continues.
> ...





The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying . . . It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

_Carl Sagan_ - among my favorite authors


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 22, 2013)

At the risk of repeating myself...  

If God IS, She's way bigger than ALL the ancient stories, let alone any one of them.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 22, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> At the risk of repeating myself...
> 
> If God IS, She's way bigger than ALL the ancient stories, let alone any one of them.



Your forgot to mention that she is also an LBGT minority with a speech impediment and has a macabre sense of humor.


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There you go actually confirming my point.  

I have no idea if the Earth is unique in the universe.  Humanity has far, far, FAR too little observational power to know.  Which is, of course, the entire point.


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe this continues.
> ...



You are missing the point entirely!

'God did it' is a conclusion.  It does not negate seeing the effects of gravity.  Unless you are physically blind or have some malady that prevents you from seeing it, you will see something fall.  If you wish to conclude god made it fall, more power to you.  You will STILL have seen it fall, whether you believe in gravity or not.

With your definition of spiritual, people do NOT see anything fall until they believe they will see something fall.  

See the difference?

That man has believed in and worshiped many different types of supernatural beings or gods has already been pointed out.  So no, we don't have seventy thousand years of man worshiping the same thing as evidence.


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah, the blueprint for the cancer cell (thanks, designer gawds), serves a litany of "purposes". 

That wasn't a miracle at all. Just a masterstroke of "design".


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


asked and answered. 
your logic (if it can be called that) is if it's not in the bible it does not exist...
as I said before our best tech is not good enough yet to conclusively answer that question..


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


who's dishonesty ?
can't be more dishonest then claiming earth is the only planet that has life based on a flawed collection of myths from 2000 years ago.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


are you really this blindly arrogant what you posted was plagiarized ,you have yet to credit the real authors.
not only that the "facts" you speak of are from creationist sites. 
they are pseudoscience steaming piles of false premise religious dogma. 
not facts. the quote below proves this:

"What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it". YWC 

confirming bullshit with bullshit is still bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I already did..


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Astrology! next!


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


co·in·ci·dence

 [ k&#333; ínssid&#601;nss ]   


1.chance happening: something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way
2.happening without planning: the fact of happening by chance.
only a willfully ignorant asshole would preach design  with no evidence of it ...sound like any body we know?


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no need to! 
your statement has no basis in fact as you have no basis of comparison. 
I win.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another false declarative.


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
> ...


but I did credit the source .unlike yourself.. bahahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


why can't you say I have no proof there isn't life out there?


----------



## daws101 (May 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
> ...



this is one of those pseudoscience religious dogma sites nothing they say is based on fact.
my math tells me you and them are talking out your collective ass.
but thanks for helping me showcase your fraudulent knowledge of science.


http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe


Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe



Claim

Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old. 

Source
Barnes, Thomas G., 1982 (Aug.) Young age for the moon and earth. Impact 110. [1] 
Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Chick Publications, 1984. 

Responses
1.This linear extrapolation is incorrect. 
2.Ignoring the case against such an extrapolation, the moon is currently receding at 3.8 cm/year and is 3.8*10^10 cm from the Earth. This allows perfectly well for a billion-year time scale. 
3.According to Kepler's laws, the lower the distance between Earth and Moon the less time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. This means that the Moon orbited much faster in ancient times if it was much closer to Earth. Therefore the frequency of the tides were lower, because the difference of orbit time and the time of the rotation of the earth was lower (even if rotation was faster, because the relative time change of earth-rotation is less than relative orbit time change of the moon). Energy dissipation and the drag force on the Moon are dependent on the tidal frequency and the tidal strength, but even if the tidal strength was larger due to the closer Moon, the effect of the lower tidal frequency prevailed. This simply means that the Moon receded even slower in ancient times. E.g. in the extreme case when Earth and Moon are corotating, i.e. the Moon is so close that it circles the Earth in exactly the same time as the Earth revolves, the frequency of the tides would be zero, as would energy dissipation and drag force. The Moon would not recede at all, although the tides (which would then rather be permanent deformations of the Earth, being always at the same place) would be very high because of the close Moon. 
4.The moon's recession and the Earth's slowing are perfectly consistent with them both being billions of years old. In fact, if you assume that the function is linear (it's not), you end up with an age for both Earth and the moon that is actually quite a lot older than they actually are. This is because the rate of the moon's recession and Earth's slowing spin is, itself, slowing down.


----------



## Boss (May 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



"God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion. 

In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.  

We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misunderstands everything else.


----------



## Montrovant (May 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> "God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.
> 
> In the example, I can see the results of gravity, I just draw a different conclusion from the evidence. You can see the results of spiritual evidence, you just draw a different conclusion.
> 
> We have 70k years of humans practicing worship of something greater than self. Yes, this has taken many forms, but the fundamental is spirituality. It's important not to be distracted by minutia here, man can certainly misunderstand their spiritual connection, the same as man misunderstands everything else.



The important difference is that one can show the results of gravity repeatedly, with the same tools.  I am unaware of anything that works the same in the realm of the spiritual.

Man could just as easily misunderstand that the spiritual and supernatural are manifestations of imagination rather than reality.  On that subject there is, obviously, no convincing to be done either way.


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > How do you suppose volcanoes erupt?
> ...



Nope. 

It is a complicated process, but certainly has to do with pressure, which exists because of friction and gravitational forces of the moon and sun, and also internal atmospheric pressure, controlled by our atmosphere. In other words, the combination of precise amounts of pressure, friction and gravity from our nature. Man, are we lucky! 




> > If life itself is "not so demanding" why is there not more evidence of it, and the only place we've found it, is here?
> 
> 
> You do realize that the search for life beyond our own planet is truly, only a few decades old, beginning in earnest with radio telescopes, Hubble, supercomputers, etc.
> ...



First it is argued that "life is not so demanding" and then, it is argued life is so scarce it can't be found anywhere. Which one is it? Yes, you have a pretty comfortable excuse, the vastness of the universe means we will never be able to explore it all. Still.. if life is not so demanding, it would seem to me, we'd see more evidence of it. As of now, Earth is the only place we know life to exist. You can say it's a sure thing that we'll one day discover life elsewhere, you can be convinced this will happen on the moons of Saturn, or Mars, and you can believe that with all the faith of a born again christian, for all I care. You still have not proven life to exist elsewhere. 

Maybe it's just that my mind is more complex or my interests in nature have always been strong, but when I see the many wonders of our natural world, the detail and eloquence, the amazing and extraordinary beauty of life and the life cycle, I can't pretend this was something that wasn't created. and merely happened because of a long string of coincidence. This is an unbelievable thing for me, I hope you will try and understand that this is my perspective here, I simply do not see the world and universe the same as you.


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > "God does't exist" is also a conclusion. "Spirituality is imagination" is a conclusion.
> ...



We're going in circles here. Pay attention... You can demonstrate gravity as many times as you like, if I am refusing to accept your scientific explanation for gravity, and claim that it is the force of god at work, and refuse to accept your scientific evidence as valid, you will never ever ever ever be able to convince me. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph, until it penetrates your cranium, because I am tired of going in circles. 

You refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. I can show you evidence until I am blue in the face, just like the example above... you are never going to be convinced. 

You say that man could misunderstand something for all of man's existence? That this intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, is just in his head, imaginary? Well.. about 5% of the human population have been able to convince themselves of this. That it's all just a big misunderstanding and overactive imagination run wild. They are Nihilists. 

I personally can't believe this, because I am very much in touch with my spiritual connection. I guess I am at a disadvantage over some here, because my "faith" doesn't really require much faith, I know this power exists and I rely on it daily. I am most comfortable with this arrangement, and don't need to seek any more answers or see anymore evidence. What I am doing in this thread, is exposing the god-haters. The people who are genuinely not interested in answering the question of god's existence, because they don't like the answer. These are closed-minded individuals who will not open their minds for anything spiritual in nature, because they hate and loathe religious people.


----------



## Montrovant (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It continues to be you who doesn't understand and moves this discussion in circles.

Whether you believe gravity is the result of natural forces or the work of a god is irrelevant.  The only relevant thing is that you see the effects.  It is objectively observable (yes, we're back to this, as you seem to have had a problem with it the first time around).  One does not need to believe that gravity exists to see a rock fall when it is dropped from your hand.  The rock falls whether you believe it is gravity or the will of god or the ground fairy using it's magic vacuum cleaner.

By your definition, this is not the case with the spiritual.  In order to see the spiritual rock fall, one must believe.  If you don't believe....I guess the rock never moves.

You are actually the one who said man has misunderstood the spiritual throughout our existence.  You said you believe organized religion, which has been around for most of our history in one form or another, is a product of human imagination.  You believe it is an attempt to 'grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to.'.  If humanity can misunderstand the spiritual so widely for so long, why could that misunderstanding not be of a different nature?  

It seems arrogant that those who don't believe are god-haters, closed minded and unwilling to ask questions about god's existence because they don't like the answer....but you are of course open minded, willing to ask whatever questions, and have no worries about possible answers.  It couldn't be that, having decided you already know the answers, you are as closed minded as you accuse others of being, no!


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You can tell me it's gravity that causes the rock to move, but if I don't accept what you call gravity, and believe that god makes the rock move, you will never change my mind. There is no doubt, we observe the same rock move... just as you and I observe the same 70,000 year history of mankind worshiping. Spirituality happens and does exist, whether you acknowledge it or recognize it is spiritual, just like the rock falls. Your perception of what we observed is different. 



> You are actually the one who said man has misunderstood the spiritual throughout our existence.  You said you believe organized religion, which has been around for most of our history in one form or another, is a product of human imagination.  You believe it is an attempt to 'grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to.'.  If humanity can misunderstand the spiritual so widely for so long, why could that misunderstanding not be of a different nature?



It is possible that man is totally wrong, and the spiritual connection is some kind of physical connection science has yet to discover or explain, I suppose. I am merely using "spiritual" in the sense that it's non-physical. Nevertheless, mankind does connect with something that science can't explain physically at this time. I call it spiritual, if another word makes you more comfortable, I understand, but the connection is real, not imagined. 



> It seems arrogant that those who don't believe are god-haters, closed minded and unwilling to ask questions about god's existence because they don't like the answer....but you are of course open minded, willing to ask whatever questions, and have no worries about possible answers.  It couldn't be that, having decided you already know the answers, you are as closed minded as you accuse others of being, no!



I am open minded, I am willing to examine all the spiritual evidence and physical evidence, and evaluate objectively. I can't do this with closed-minded people who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, there is no point. 

I didn't decide I knew the answers, there are many things I do not know. I do not require anymore answers with regard to the question of god's existence. That is a completely different statement, and you've taken it out of context in order to ridicule me. Do you love your mother? Is there any need for you to ponder the question? Do you need to evaluate evidence to decide, or is your mind made up? What if I don't believe you? What if you've not convinced me with evidence you love your mother? If you don't want or need to prove this to me, are you being closed-minded?


----------



## Mom (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Still waiting...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.


----------



## Mom (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



You have nothing. Got it.


----------



## Hollie (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The "_70k years..."_ canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand. 

These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.


----------



## tipofthespear (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...




So, give my YOUR three best ways to prove the existence of "wind."  Hurry, times awasting!  And I wouldn't want ya to get "blown away" with the "chafe."


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you're claiming they were your words ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You posted nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



This is not what I was speaking of but correction noted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Over and over again talk about ignorance and being naive.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How many times have you not ? do I detect someone really defensive.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Why should I ? is there life out there ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your math skills are poor as was pointed out in the other thread take a hike dumbass.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

The only fraud in this thread is yourself daws and why are you working so hard to change peoples minds about you ? now I will ignore your posts that are not worth addressing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

You resorted to plagiarism in the creationism thread as well daws eh ?

Post of plagiarism. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-1042.html#post6886253

Same ol source you use and don't credit. Amphora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (May 23, 2013)

The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



I have more than you could ever imagine.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.



Religion is easy to understand. But it requires faith. And that seems to be difficult for some because they want to see proof which contradicts faith.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...




if that is an answer why are you still here ...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Why wouldn't I still be here?


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> The "_70k years..."_ canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.
> 
> These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.



Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately. 

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged. 

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.


----------



## dblack (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.
> ...



It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.


----------



## Mom (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So then give me 3. Or are you just a faker?


----------



## Montrovant (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The "_70k years..."_ canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.
> ...



Yes, science has discovered the answers to many natural phenomena, removing the need for supernatural explanations.  However, there are still many questions humans do not have answers to, and science is not equipped to answer all of them.  As you have stated previously, science is generally going to answer the how but not the why.

So, questions such as 'why are we here?', 'what happens after we die?', or 'how did life/the universe begin?' are still very relevant.  Those kinds of questions are the kinds of things that religion and belief often provide answers to.

This idea that there are no questions for humanity left which could lead to imagined answers is ridiculous.  You have to elevate humanity's knowledge far above where it actually stands in order to think anything else.  Our ignorance of the universe still FAR outstrips our knowledge.

Oh, and I don't think superstitious beliefs have all but disappeared.  Some of them, sure, but plenty more remain.  Beyond those of religion, there are still people who throw salt over their shoulders, avoid walking under ladders, and countless other little superstitions.  Again, you seem to give humanity more credit for rationality than is deserved.


----------



## Hollie (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The "_70k years..."_ canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.
> ...


I can understand your being angry at your specious opinions bring refuted, but why not counter opposing arguments with fact instead of pith and vinegar? You generously give yourself credit for defeating an argunent you aren't able to understand. You rattle on with terms such as "spirituality", for a failed attempt to promote religion.  

I think the truth is useful, of course, which is why it's useful to expose those who make unfounded, bellicose claims which they're unable to defend. 

Why do far fewer people believe in literal creationism now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Certainly, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creation hypothesis. In large part this was because the religious authorities had greater influence and managed to rigorously suppress the scientific community. A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery. Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated. That was a positive development for humanity. I cant imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition. That's why it's important to confront those who promote such fear and superstition.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...


the classic dodge!


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 asked and answered.


----------



## Montrovant (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Three quick things.

First, you have said that in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual.  That is not the case for observing a rock fall.  Your continued harping on the 70k year thing aside, that's a huge difference.

Second, whether I love my mother or not is subject to change.  Is your belief in god's existence subject to change?  If not, your analogy falls flat.

Third, my point about you deciding you know the answers is not just about a particular statement you've made, but the sum of what you've posted in this thread.  Your evidence for almost everything you've claimed about the spiritual boils down to, 'because I say so.'.  You seem as convinced of the veracity of your claims as anyone else, yet because others disagree with you, they are closed minded and afraid of the answers they may receive, yet you are not.  That continues to seem like arrogant double standard to me.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ah no, that's your job!


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


lol! like everything else you claim to detect it has no basis in fact.


----------



## Mom (May 23, 2013)

*Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*

I don't know if he exists, but if he does and we're made in his image, god's a fucking retard.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> *Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*
> 
> I don't know if he exists, but if he does and we're made in his image, god's a fucking retard.



Self esteem issue huh? &#9835;  &#9835;


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


now you're contradicting yourself. you've yammered endlessly that earth is special and there is no life anywhere else. With absolutely  no evidence of any kind. 

the bible even refutes your bullshit: 

Does the discovery of life on other planets contradict with religions?
answer:

No, if life is discovered on other planets then it will not contradict with religions. 

Below are opinions from view points of different religions:

A. In the Islamic religion:
&#8226;It is mentioned in Quran, Muslim's holy book, that God (the Creator) is the Lord of all worlds. God says in Quran that God is the Lord of what we know and what we don't. God says in Quran that we have known only little. Accordingly, nothing in Quran or Islam religions contradicts with the possibility of discovering life on other planets. God says in Quran (meaning English translation): 
&#8226;{In the name of Allah (God), the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. (1) [All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds...} [Quran, chapter 1, verse 1-2]
&#8226;{To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth and what is between them and what is under the soil. (6)} [Quran, chapter 20, verse 6]
&#8226;{And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little." (85)} [Quran, chapter 17, verse 85]
&#8226;{The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving. (44)} [Quran, chapter 17, verse 44]
&#8226;There is a religious explanation, even before such discoveries, revise these verses: 
{28. And He it is Who sendeth down the saving rain after they have despaired, and spreadeth out His mercy. He is the Protecting Friend, the Praiseworthy. 29. And of His portents is the creation of the heaven and the earth, and of whatever beasts He hath dispersed therein. And He is Able to gather them when He will.}[quoted from, Meanings of the Golrious Quran, by Marmaduke Pickthall]
Here the mention of Heavens and earth, meant the whole universe,
&#8226;{12. Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge.}So, for certain there is life on other parts of the universe, whether we discovered this or not.




 The above Quran verses confirm that we still don't know except a little and that God is the Creator of all worlds what we know and what we don't. Accordingly, discovering life on other planets doesn't contradict with Quran or with Islam religion. 

B. In the Christian religion:
&#8226;There is nothing in the Bible that says God created life only on this planet. Doesn't even rule out other intelligent life in the universe. But after seeing the mess we created in this world, He would probably not try again.
&#8226;Most certainly. The Bible speaks nothing of life on other planets, though some may craft an explantion through through vague references and loose endings. However, the fact remains that would seriously hinder Christian credibility as an absolute religion whose implications are universal. What I think is more interesting is that this does not rule out the existence of God as creator, merely the existence of a God we thought we knew. This discovery would force us as an entire race to seriously question our faith - at least where we rest our faith - because a discovery like that would prove beyond doubt many religions false.
&#8226;The original unadulterated idea of God transmitted to us by Adam through Noah is one of having no form, no physical or natural bounds, one beyond perception and even conception (the imagination). That theology is completely invulnerable and impervious to a discovery of life at another location. Only theologies which are self (human)-centric could be weakened by such a discovery.
&#8226;Read the Scriptures as God speaks to Abraham. He says that he has created worlds without end. The Scriptures do not say that life and God's children are restricted to just this earth. If God would create one world where Billions have lived, why would He not create another place, where more of His children can be tested whether they will follow what is right or not. There are Christian churches that use other holy Christian writings as well as those gathered into 'The Bible'. Certain of those writings reveal that God has created "worlds without number" ... and "the inhabitants thereof are as numberless as the sands upon the seashore" [Moses 1:28] ... 'and the inhabitants thereof, are begotten sons and daughters unto God', ... "But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you ... For behold there are many worlds ..." [Moses 1:35] Here is also a scientific way to test the truthfulness of the Gospel. Put it to the test. Exercise a little faith, read the scriptures, pray about it and wait for answer. And when you receive the answer, feed it and let it grow. It's an experiment. Try it. (And to express an idea that God has killed millions is incorrect. We have the freedom to choose; it's a sacred right. We are judged by those choices. We are free to choose and those who have decided to murder suffer their choices.)
&#8226;The simple answer is no. God has no limits, and the only limit in religion is the mind of man, who is unable to comprehend this. The real answer is: the Baha'i Faith teaches that there are an infinity of other planets out there, and each is alive with God's creatures. They may be very unlike us, but they exist.
&#8226;For some religions, the answer would be "we already knew that". For most others, the answer would be "we already knew that, it's just that you misunderstood us before".
&#8226;I do not think that it would debunk religion. Science and religion serve VERY different needs of humanity, religion is a matter of faith; faith is belief without proof. Science is a tool to understand our surroundings and has zero room for "faith". I do not think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.
&#8226;Actually, the Bible itself says there is intelligent life other than man. There are intelligent beings called angels, cherubim, seraphim, there are the four beasts which stand before the throne of God. The Bible is full of "life on other planets." Also, Christian writers in the last century wrote many sci-fi stories about encountering life on other planets, etc. Some were better than others, but the concept is not foreign to Orthodox Christianity. And if you incorporate Christian fantasy writings such as The Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, the treatment of the idea of intelligence other than man is even more fully developed. The "problem" posed by the possibility of life on other planets is mostly a moral question. If there are other beings, do they have to obey the same rules as we do? What if their religion were contradictory to ours? Would that challenge the truth of ours? If they experienced a "fall" as our first ancestors did, do they need redemption? In fact, I once heard about a sci-fi story written by a non-Christian author (I have not read it) in which humans land on a planet and Jesus is there getting ready to die on the cross. Several of the earthmen try to stop His execution but Jesus won't let them. He tells them it's necessary for Him to die there, just as He had to die on earth.
&#8226;In every single religious book eg. "Bible" it doesn't say that life doesn't exist on other planets. But in most religious books it states that there are nine planets eg. Mercury, which have life on them... Life being some form eg. Bacteria, not necessarily "Aliens" and in my personal opinion UFO's are a load of CRAP, you can see in UFO sighting pics and videos that its all rubbish. But religions' explanation would be along the lines of what it says in their religious books.
&#8226;The Bible does mention life in other planets that has not gotten corrupted by sin like in earth.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_discovery_of_life_on_other_planets_contradict_with_religions

this is another case of you. casting god in your own image.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You resorted to plagiarism in the creationism thread as well daws eh ?
> 
> Post of plagiarism. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-1042.html#post6886253
> 
> Same ol source you use and don't credit. Amphora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


looks like you just broke you own rule...


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Because, that's what you're going to do, right? 



> You generously give yourself credit for defeating an argunent you aren't able to understand. You rattle on with terms such as "spirituality", for a failed attempt to promote religion.



Where are your facts refuting my argument? Sounds like another personal attack, full of pith and vinegar. 



> I think the truth is useful, of course, which is why it's useful to expose those who make unfounded, bellicose claims which they're unable to defend.



Again, I see no facts refuting anything I've said here. 



> Why do far fewer people believe in literal creationism now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?



I don't know that this is a fact. Am I supposed to take your word for it? 



> Certainly, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creation hypothesis.



You still haven't proposed one. 



> In large part this was because the religious authorities had greater influence and managed to rigorously suppress the scientific community.



What science has been suppressed? 



> A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery.



There is still no naturalistic explanation for origin or cross-genus speciation. You still can't explain why the Big Bang happened, or what existed before it. 



> Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated.



Evolution does not explain origin, it never has. It can't even explain cross-genus speciation. There is no evidence this ever happened, much less, overwhelming evidence. 



> That was a positive development for humanity. I cant imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition. That's why it's important to confront those who promote such fear and superstition.



It's a good thing you can't imagine such a world, since it doesn't exist, never has and never will. Humans are intrinsically connected to spirituality, not superstition and fear. 

So there we have it, you simply did not refute my argument with facts. For the most part, you attacked me personally, then launched into religion and religious people. Which is what this thread is all about to you and the god-haters. You can't pull your minds away from religion long enough to be objective, like dogs returning to their vomit.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > *Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*
> ...


yeah yours...


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


this post is a prime example  of the axiom "the longer the post the deeper the bullshit!"


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required. 

Your fire analogy is flawed in the sense that the basic understanding of fire is knowing the ingredients needed to produce it (heat, fuel and oxygen). Understanding how heat passes from molecule to molecule and things like that has no bearing on a persons ability to use it.

(John20: 29 ) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


that's not an answer. 
faith requires action ,that is to say when someone takes on a faith, SPECIFIC rules and regulations are applied, if a person declines to follow those rules and regs, they are ousted from that belief system.
so faith in and of itself is not enough.


----------



## Hollie (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That's all very melodramatic but the "angry fundamentalist" thing is getting old. .

Many ancient peoples had beliefs in gods, spirits and all sorts of superstitions which were used to explain phenomena they didnt understand. The Abrahamic god of the desert is more recent but no less a vehicle for superstition. Share the knowledge why your god(s) are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify your claim that you in some way attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have some cleats in the turf. But it's all gainsay.

The only thing we have ("we" meaning those who don't embrace your particular theology) is your assertion about something you call "spirituality" but are unable to define in any meaningful way. It seems you're actually using terms you don't understand to press your fundamentalist religious agenda. You like to make the claim to mysterious, supernatural "spiritual" connections and that humans have always had an inherent hard-wiring to this mumbo-jumbo so hey-- why don't you show us all the evidence that places your alleged spirit realms into a meaningful context?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Many times I have stood at a crossroad unsure of which direction to turn. I asked God to guide me and He did. Many times I was faced with death, I asked God to save me and he did. I stood and watched as God comforted my Mother as she lay dying, I seen how He took away her pain and gave her clarity so that she could tell us (her children) things we needed to hear.  

To truly appreciate the way God has helped me and has shown Himself to me is to know from where I came and the hardships that I've faced. His guiding hand lead me off of the self destructive path I was on. Through his grace I was able to not only help myself but all that I came into contact with. I seek no glory nor fame for anything I've done in this life for all the glory belongs to Him. 

Hopefully the day will come when you accept Jesus Christ and you invite the Holy Spirit into your heart because on that very day, you will come to understand God's grace and He will reveal to you His plan for your life.


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Three quick things.
> 
> First, you have said that in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual.  That is not the case for observing a rock fall.  Your continued harping on the 70k year thing aside, that's a huge difference.



I never said "in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual" that is a misinterpretation. You can certainly observe the spiritual and reject the belief it is spiritual. Just as you can see the rock fall, we can see human history and connection to spiritual belief. Our conclusions for what we observed are different. 



> Second, whether I love my mother or not is subject to change.  Is your belief in god's existence subject to change?  If not, your analogy falls flat.



My belief in god is not subject to change. My analogy only fails if I were trying to say something different. I don't know about you, but most people are going to always love their mother, that's not ever going to change. My point was, you can't prove this to me, and you have no need to prove it to me. If I don't believe you, it doesn't change your love for your mother. I can challenge you, ridicule you, demand physical evidence, it won't change what you know in your heart to be true. 



> Third, my point about you deciding you know the answers is not just about a particular statement you've made, but the sum of what you've posted in this thread.  Your evidence for almost everything you've claimed about the spiritual boils down to, 'because I say so.'.  You seem as convinced of the veracity of your claims as anyone else, yet because others disagree with you, they are closed minded and afraid of the answers they may receive, yet you are not.  That continues to seem like arrogant double standard to me.



Well I am sorry that I am so well-informed and well-equipped to debate the topic of my thread. In the future, I will try to start threads where you can make valid points that I can't refute, so you will feel better about things. I've not once posted "because I say so" in this thread, I'm not sure where you are reading this, but please give some example so we can clear up this misinterpretation as well.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Not a dodge, just an understanding of the mentality of people like her and you. 

You need God to reveal Himself to you before you will ever believe. Which is quite odd seeing that you already believe so much that has not been proven.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



She has a problem with my self esteem? Since you know so much then explain how that can be.

Or was your comment just a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?


----------



## Mom (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Leave the poor boy alone, he's got nothing.


----------



## dblack (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



For the kind of understanding I'm proposing, it does. The fire analogy is appropriate. You're describing what is required to use and experience religion, as opposed to understanding it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Just where did I suggest faith required no action?  Having faith _is_ an action in that faith is believing what you can't see, prove or touch.


----------



## Mom (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



God expects you to believe in him without ONE shred of evidence? Is this the gullibility test? 

And you're forgetting about the REAl ruler of the universe, the great spaghetti monster. Why don't you believe in him?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't know of anyone of faith that has no understanding of their religion.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I see your kind everyday and I'll pray for you.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


let's see... your unnecessary response to mom's comment just screams self esteem issues.
From my pov if you really believe, like you say you do, then no comment made about it by any one else should have no effect.
also when your second comment ; "because you are incapable of anything more substantive"-LS   is factored in it corroborates my observation.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


was that a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?


----------



## dblack (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



At this point in time, I don't think anyone really understands religion - any more than cavemen understood fire (even if they were able to use it).


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> That's all very melodramatic but the "angry fundamentalist" thing is getting old. .



What's getting old is repeatedly being called a "fundamentalist" or "religious" when I have repeatedly gone out of my way to say I am not religious, and many have described my personal beliefs as "atheistic." I do believe in a god, it's just not the religious incarnation traditionally understood by organized religions. 

So why does this accusation persist? Do you think that only religious people are spiritual?  



> Many ancient peoples had beliefs in gods, spirits and all sorts of superstitions which were used to explain phenomena they didnt understand.



Again, if this were a valid theory, we would see a DRAMATIC decline in human spiritual belief, as science explained away ALL the unknown questions of ancient man. Superstition, which was not based in religious theology, HAS declined, it is nowhere near as prevalent today as in our past. If your were arguing against mere superstition, I can see that point, because we also see a rapid decline in superstitious beliefs, but that has not occurred with spirituality, just as many humans are spiritual in nature as before science was invented....which, by the way, WAS invented to "explain the unexplained." Ironic!



> The Abrahamic god of the desert is more recent but no less a vehicle for superstition. Share the knowledge why your god(s) are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify your claim that you in some way attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have some cleats in the turf. But it's all gainsay.



I'm not here to argue specific theological belief, I reject most religious belief. All religion is good for in this discussion, is to prove mankind's intrinsic connection to something greater than self, and that man has an imagination. 



> The only thing we have ("we" meaning those who don't embrace your particular theology) is your assertion about something you call "spirituality" but are unable to define in any meaningful way. It seems you're actually using terms you don't understand to press your fundamentalist religious agenda. You like to make the claim to mysterious, supernatural "spiritual" connections and that humans have always had an inherent hard-wiring to this mumbo-jumbo so hey-- why don't you show us all the evidence that places your alleged spirit realms into a meaningful context?



I do not have a theology. I have defined spirituality and spiritual nature. I even gave examples of spiritual evidence, which you continue to reject and dismiss. I am not a fundamentalist, I don't practice religion, so I have no religious agenda. The reason you continue making this false insinuation, is because this is about your war on religion. You have no intention of ever being open minded on this topic, because you fear it would lend support to religious arguments, and you hate religion. Therefore, you have closed your mind to possibilities, because you are intolerant of religion and religious beliefs. 

This is not about religion, or religious incarnations of who god is. I will agree with you on just about any criticism you have for religion or religious incarnations of god. That does not negate human spiritual connection at all. You have simply conflated religion with spirituality, and closed your mind. 

I have no answer for that.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


may be you're right ..he makes it sooo easy.


----------



## Montrovant (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Three quick things.
> ...



Most people will always love their mothers, sure.  But what if they found out something terrible about her?  What if she did something monstrous to them?  New information about her can still affect their view.  If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?  

Again, you miss the point.  It is not whether I can bring up points that you refute or not that matters.  It is that you describe the beliefs of those who disagree with you as closed minded.  It is that you assume they are afraid of the answers you think they will find.  You apparently assume no one can ask the questions you are talking about and come to any conclusions other than those you have.  It is that you admit to using circular logic in your arguments but think that is perfectly ok and should not be a point of contention, because even if it's circular logic, it's still true!
You seem to equate disagreement with your conclusions with closed mindedness and fear.  That is a basic tenet of extreme views, be they religious, political, or whatever.  'I'm right.  Not only am I right, but anyone who disagrees with me isn't just wrong, they are stupid or fearful or illogical and irrational.  No reasonable person can possibly come to any other conclusion than mine.'.  That is the tone, for want of a better word, I get from your posts.

I'm sorry if I've misread you.  Here's an example of what you've said that led me to my conclusion :


Boss said:


> Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence.



And further in that post :


> I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.



So it was objective observation, not simply observation, that you talked about there.  Ok, I'll accept I misrepresented you.  I can only assume, if that is the case, that you mean that one who doesn't believe in the spiritual will still see the spiritual but will simply believe it to be something else?

Have to go out, bbl.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



No not at all. That was a sincere comment, every word was absolutely true.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I for one fully understand my religion.


----------



## Boss (May 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Most people will always love their mothers, sure.  But what if they found out something terrible about her?  What if she did something monstrous to them?  New information about her can still affect their view.  If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?



I didn't say my belief cannot change, I said it won't change. Just like I can never convince you that you don't love your mother, no 'evidence' I can produce, will change your love. You don't require your love to be validated by me, if I don't believe you love your mother, it doesn't mean you don't love her, and it will never mean that. 



> Again, you miss the point.  It is not whether I can bring up points that you refute or not that matters.  It is that you describe the beliefs of those who disagree with you as closed minded.



I have said that people who have closed their minds to spiritual evidence are closed-minded, because that's what they are. It's not my belief, it's what they are. It has nothing to do with agreement, I am sure there are plenty of religious people in this thread who disagree with my view of god. 



> It is that you assume they are afraid of the answers you think they will find.  You apparently assume no one can ask the questions you are talking about and come to any conclusions other than those you have.  It is that you admit to using circular logic in your arguments but think that is perfectly ok and should not be a point of contention, because even if it's circular logic, it's still true!



You raised the circular logic, I merely pointed out that circular logic isn't necessarily wrong. You can't refute that statement. I maintain, if you can accept spiritual evidence, the proof of god's existence is definitive and overwhelming. The problem is, you close your mind to spiritual evidence, dismiss it as coincidence or delusion, and refuse to open your mind to any other possibility. I believe you do this because you know the spiritual evidence is too overwhelming, you have no argument to counter it, and so you have to disallow spiritual evidence. 



> You seem to equate disagreement with your conclusions with closed mindedness and fear.



Again, there are several religious people in this thread, I am certain we have a difference of opinion regarding god. They have not reached the same conclusion as me, obviously. You are closed minded because your mind is closed to spirituality... is that circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it's true. 



> That is a basic tenet of extreme views, be they religious, political, or whatever.  'I'm right.  Not only am I right, but anyone who disagrees with me isn't just wrong, they are stupid or fearful or illogical and irrational.  No reasonable person can possibly come to any other conclusion than mine.'.  That is the tone, for want of a better word, I get from your posts.



Funny, that sounds exactly like what all the god-haters are doing in this thread! 



> I'm sorry if I've misread you.  Here's an example of what you've said that led me to my conclusion :
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. _(this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument)_ We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.


----------



## Hollie (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Most people will always love their mothers, sure.  But what if they found out something terrible about her?  What if she did something monstrous to them?  New information about her can still affect their view.  If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?
> ...



In order to avoid complete buffoonery, are you going to present evidence for this "spiritual-ness" you rattle on about but never quite get around to demonstrating?


----------



## Montrovant (May 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. _(this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument)_ We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.



Would it be fair to say that humans do not directly observe the spiritual?  That, like gravity, while we see the effects, things spiritual are not 'visible', that our senses do not directly detect them?

I'm trying to understand in more detail what you describe.  Is god a being?  Are there spiritual beings?  If humans had different perceptions, would we see them as some sort of creature?  
Is it possible the spiritual is actually part of the physical realm, but we have not found a way to detect it yet?  Think of it like dark matter.  It is believed to exist but we cannot directly detect it (assuming I'm not butchering the theory behind dark matter).  Given further technology, however, perhaps we may someday see it, like seeing a spectrum of light not visible to the naked eye.


----------



## numan (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I for one fully understand my religion.


*Stupidity consists in wanting to come to a conclusion.*
---_Elemire Zola_

*Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.*
---_Voltaire_

*Only the shallow know themselves.*
---_Oscar Wilde_

.


----------



## edthecynic (May 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Don't hold your breath. He hasn't yet. The ONLY spirituality shown so far has depended on the existence of physical human beings. While he claims it is possible for the spiritual to exist without the existence of humans, he has yet to demonstrate it.

He will insist that his pontifications are proof of the existence of the spiritual before the existence of the physical and then give another example of the physical being spiritual (actually the same example over again) while admitting the spiritual can't be physical. So even after showing that he is ass backwards on spirituality by his own examples, he will then claim that anyone who does not accept his pontifications on spirituality does not believe in the spiritual.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your classic dodge!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If You want to believe in miracles be my guest.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your math skills are so poor and that is why you can't see truth concerning the receding moon.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > You resorted to plagiarism in the creationism thread as well daws eh ?
> ...



Not me sorry but I am guessing you will credit your sources from now on and our conversations will shrink in size unless you continue to copy and paste from wiki.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


"Faith is all that is required"-LS.
you've just contradicted yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



I thought you and your buddy think people like mom are pussies because they are agnostic. Sorry for the language to everyone else but I wanted to talk to daws on his LEVEL where he could understand.

Yep mom you're on the same level as a believer with the Ideologue Atheists like daws and His buddies.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it would be but I don't dodge.
and I don't usually  plagiarize other peoples work. a thing you do consistently! 
besides DID you not put me on ignore?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That might be so in your little cult that screwed you up. The one you're in now though will do more damage.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that answer proves you misrepresent the bible.
it also has dick to do with  what I posted.


----------



## daws101 (May 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Moon_i...n_old_universe


Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe



Claim

Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old. 

Source
Barnes, Thomas G., 1982 (Aug.) Young age for the moon and earth. Impact 110. [1] 
Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Chick Publications, 1984. 

Responses
1.This linear extrapolation is incorrect. 
2.Ignoring the case against such an extrapolation, the moon is currently receding at 3.8 cm/year and is 3.8*10^10 cm from the Earth. This allows perfectly well for a billion-year time scale. 
3.According to Kepler's laws, the lower the distance between Earth and Moon the less time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. This means that the Moon orbited much faster in ancient times if it was much closer to Earth. Therefore the frequency of the tides were lower, because the difference of orbit time and the time of the rotation of the earth was lower (even if rotation was faster, because the relative time change of earth-rotation is less than relative orbit time change of the moon). Energy dissipation and the drag force on the Moon are dependent on the tidal frequency and the tidal strength, but even if the tidal strength was larger due to the closer Moon, the effect of the lower tidal frequency prevailed. This simply means that the Moon receded even slower in ancient times. E.g. in the extreme case when Earth and Moon are corotating, i.e. the Moon is so close that it circles the Earth in exactly the same time as the Earth revolves, the frequency of the tides would be zero, as would energy dissipation and drag force. The Moon would not recede at all, although the tides (which would then rather be permanent deformations of the Earth, being always at the same place) would be very high because of the close Moon. 
4.The moon's recession and the Earth's slowing are perfectly consistent with them both being billions of years old. In fact, if you assume that the function is linear (it's not), you end up with an age for both Earth and the moon that is actually quite a lot older than they actually are. This is because the rate of the moon's recession and Earth's slowing spin is, itself, slowing down. 
__________________


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

Mom said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Psa 19:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork. 

1Ch 16:24  Declare His glory among the heathen, His marvelous works among all nations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Faith is action numb nuts or did you just contradict yourself ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No I actually can debate the issues without having to copy and paste shall we see. Let's debate origins and I will argue why life could not have come in to existence absent of a designer and you argue how it happened naturally.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You never even read what I posted .1984 you could not do any better a lot has been learned since then.


----------



## LittleNipper (May 24, 2013)

More proof that God exists and answers prayers protecting His own. Please see: Tornado birth: Mom endures labor as twister destroys hospital - Vitals


----------



## dblack (May 24, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> More proof that God exists and answers prayers protecting His own. Please see: Tornado birth: Mom endures labor as twister destroys hospital - Vitals



Hmm... so would all the stories where things didn't work out so well be proof that God doesn't exist, or simply doesn't give a shit?

It sort of reminds me of sports figures who thank God for their victories. Do the blame him for their losses?


----------



## Mom (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So if I write a book about all the miracles that the Great Spaghetti Monster did, and everything he said and wanted humans to be and do, will you believe that as well?


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



We've been there before. Your argument amounts to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya  and silliness from Christian fundie websites. 

It's really laughable.


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> More proof that God exists and answers prayers protecting His own. Please see: Tornado birth: Mom endures labor as twister destroys hospital - Vitals


Well yeah. Screw those other losers who actually die. 

What a shame the gawds decided to play one-upsmanship in Oklahoma.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> *More proof that God exists and answers prayers* protecting His own. Please see: Tornado birth: Mom endures labor as twister destroys hospital - Vitals



 Are you saying that your God killing those 10 innocent children including a 4 month old and a 7 month old is proof that he exists? Whose prayers did he answer when he punished his followers by destroying their homes and possessions?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Mom said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



The bible can stand up to any scrutiny and pass all tests through it's history and the prophecies that are contained in it. What some don't consider is that the bible is in every language and languages have changed over the many years and the various versions try to say what was said better as languages have evolved.

If you really were searching for God you would find him. If you really wanted to see evidence of God you would see it in the works of his hands. What are the works of his hands it's all around you. Will you still believe the creator is Random chance and this random chance produced coincidence after coincidence which over time seems a little hard to believe with anyone with a rational mind ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The challenge goes out to both you and daws and let's see. You make your argument then I will offer a response and the same for me no copying pasting things you don't understand from talk origins or wiki. You explain your views and I explain mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > More proof that God exists and answers prayers protecting His own. Please see: Tornado birth: Mom endures labor as twister destroys hospital - Vitals
> ...



I do believe when something serves a purpose to the Almighty he acts otherwise he does allow bad things to happen he is offering you a choice do you desire this world of the unknown or the world coming that will lack ignorance.

About your comment the other day God did not create cancer your mechanism for evolution did. That is right mutations but what really produced cancer was man choosing to sin and perfection was lost.


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Well sure. Humans have found many gawds In precisely the way you simply accepted the beliefs of your social / familial surroundings. Nothing too difficult about that. In fact, It's the way the vast majority of people come to belief in gawds. 

Much like all of the previous human conceptions and Inventions of magical gawds, your gawds will one day be viewed as quaint preoccupations with ancient tales and fables. 

Where is Zeus, Thor, Luda, Isis?


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Ah. I see. So the dead in Oklahoma are dead as the result of serving some gawdly purpose.

And cancer is the result of man choosing sin. 

Please tell me you have no contact with people except on anonymous discussion boards.

Even if you do, lie to me and tell me you dont.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Ironic given your self imposed ignorance of this world.


> About your comment the other day God did not create cancer your mechanism for evolution did. That is right mutations* but what really produced cancer was man choosing to sin and perfection was lost*.



Your "all knowing" God knew in advance that mankind would succumb to the temptation of knowledge so there was no *"choosing to sin"* at all. Instead it was *entrapment*. Why you worship a deity that has blames his victims for the "sins" that he has created is beyond all reason.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mom said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








Contradictions in the Bible poster | Contradictions in the Bible | Project Reason


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The dead in Oklahoma are dead because an imperfect world. Yes man committed the act that brought about imperfection.

Why do you think the people in oklahoma are dead ? Why do you think cancer exists ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I can't speak for God no more than I can speak for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Mom said:
> ...



Every time I have dealt with atheistic attacks on the bible it is usually because of the atheist's ignorance of the scriptures.

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why do you excuse your gawds for acts we would otherwise attribute to the criminally insane?


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Every time I've dealt with hyper-religious fundies, I've discovered their ignorance and obvious denial of the errors, omissions and contradictions in their various bibles.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And yet you just did so right in this thread.




Youwerecreated said:


> I do believe when something serves a purpose to the Almighty he acts otherwise he does allow bad things to happen he is offering you a choice do you desire this world of the unknown or the world coming that will lack ignorance.




Why do you contradict yourself?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So now you are blaming the innocent tornado victims for their own deaths? Explain exactly how a 4 month old is responsible for bringing about this "imperfect world"?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Can you be more specific ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Sorry my mistake, I should have been more clear. I can speak for God when I am repeating his words from the scriptures but what was asked was not answered from the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Really that is what you understood from my words ? Really ?

This is satans world not Gods world if it was Gods world no one would be dying from turbulent weather.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Too bad you are incapable of clarifying what you intended to say rather than what you actually posted.


> *This is satans world not Gods world* if it was Gods world no one would be dying from turbulent weather.



Satan is a vegetarian. Your biblical God is the one with the blood of innocents on his hands.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



God created all and so that means he owns all and has the right to judge and punish whom he see's fit. Lucky for most of mankind he came and sacrificed a part of himself for all so he no longer has to judge and punish til the final judgement.

That is also why no one has to make atonement for their sins.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your God just broke his own commandment not to kill but you are willing to let a hypocrite sit in judgement of you and your loved ones? Really?


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's as though you view rational / considered thought to be repulsive. You apparently know nothing of the gawds you kowtow to.

There is really no such thing as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gawds who cobbled it together.

The gawds established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, your gawds could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't. 

Your gawds don't cause earthquakes? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of land masses we call earthquakes.

And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gawds need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gawds" in the first place?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



First to critique the creator of all things you should have his command right it was not to kill the commandment was not to murder. big difference but someone with an ounce of reasoning should have seen that was not what was meant not to kill.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



That looks like a question for God.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your nitpicking notwithstanding your God just "murdered" 10 innocent children in a fit of pique. Too bad you lack the integrity to address the issue at hand.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



To bad you are ignorant of the scriptures and your rants are just that.

2Co 4:3  But also if our gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those being lost, 
2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. 


Mat 4:8  Again, the Devil took Him up into a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 
Mat 4:9  And he said to Him, All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me. 
Mat 4:10  Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve."


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



None of those address the issue that your God just murdered 10 innocent children. Thank you for admitting that you have nothing of value to offer by way of a valid explanation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Tell me how you think it was my God that took their lives and did you not understand the verses I posted ?


----------



## numan (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Every time I have dealt with atheistic attacks on the bible it is usually because of the atheist's ignorance of the scriptures.


Usually? So that means that _sometimes_ the criticisms are well founded?
.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are you now backtracking and denying that your God "created" this world and everything in it including "Acts of God"?



> *and did you not understand the verses I posted *?



Probably better than you do but they have no bearing on your God murdering 10 innocent children.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I have dealt with atheistic attacks on the bible it is usually because of the atheist's ignorance of the scriptures.
> ...



No I have never seen an atheist  make a successful claim that discredited the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Backtrack why ? God did create all things and he gave some of his creations free will and they used that free will to be disobedient knowing the price of being sinful.

The world is in control of satan and his followers if you want to put blame on someone it belongs on who is in control of this world at this time and that is satan. I have to say you're making a poor argument. The god of this world is satan this is the end of your argument.

The new world that is coming  will eliminate all the evil in the world there will be no more pain or death.


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That looks like you're befuddled.


----------



## Hollie (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're beyond clueless. 

Like many fundies, you've never understood your bibles or the genesis tale.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Is revenge killing or murder?

Psalms 137: 9  Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The God of this world was CREATED by God and therefore made in the image and likeness of God.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.




this thread has nothing in particular to do with Biblical recidivism ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So your God created this world and then just handed it over to Satan? Do you have any idea how bizarre you sound? Instead of providing valid arguments to defend your God killing, sorry, murdering (according to you) 10 innocent children (and sparing the life of an Atheist's child) you resort to conjuring up demons and evil spirits. This is the 21st century. Your 11th century superstitions are not valid arguments.


----------



## Bezukhov (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Satan is an older brother, trying to protect his younger siblings (us) from a violent and psychopathic parent (this so called "god" of yours).


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The only answer I can give is perfect conditions were lost when man sinned.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Explain how I didn't understand the book of genesis I have studied it for many years.


----------



## Big_D2 (May 25, 2013)

Of course there is no definitive proof that God exists.  

If you're looking for the best evidence for a higher power, the best I can think of is the Our Lady of Fatima miracle: Our Lady the Immaculate Virgin: Newspaper Report of Fatima Miracle on October 13, 1917 - Our Lady of America - Rome City - Virgin Mary


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Cherry picking will not help your case.

God is not ordering Israel to act with such barbaric behavior God is prophesying that when babylon is destroyed the same destruction they used on Israel will come to them. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy at Isaiah 13:15-16:

It came at the hands of cyrus of persia modern day they are now Iran. So you believe God and his people were responsible not true.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



But he was not and is not God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I read my bible how bout you ?

Rev 12:7  And there was war in Heaven. Michael and his angels warring against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels warred, 
Rev 12:8  but did not prevail. Nor was place found for them in Heaven any more. 
Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 


Rev 12:12  Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and those tabernacling in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and in the sea! For the Devil came down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has but a little time.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Bull.

Nu 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Lucifer, the Morning Star and God of this world, is your God and the father of Jesus.

Rev 22: 16   I, Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. *I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.*

KJV - Lucifer 1; 1
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

There are places where the same story is told and the fact that your God and Satan are the same  is revealed.

1 Ch 21: 1  And *Satan* stood up against Israel, and *provoked David to number Israel.*

2 Sam 24: 1  And again the anger of *the LORD* was kindled against Israel, and he *moved David* against them *to* say, Go, *number Israel* and Judah.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That was a judgement on the men of Israel that bowed down worshiped and joined in with the people that worshiped false gods.

This is from the Jewish tanakh. Numbers 25:1-5

1. Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the Moabites.   &#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1461;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1489; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1474;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1460;&#1496;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1495;&#1462;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1460;&#1494;&#1456;&#1504;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1488;&#1464;&#1489;: 


2. They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and prostrated themselves to their gods.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1462;&#1488;&#1503;&#1464; &#1500;&#1464;&#1506;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1494;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1495;&#1461;&#1497; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1497;&#1492;&#1462;&#1503; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495;&#1458;&#1493;&#1493;&#1468; &#1500;&#1461;&#1488;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1497;&#1492;&#1462;&#1503;: 

3. Israel became attached to Baal Peor, and the anger of the Lord flared against Israel.   &#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1510;&#1468;&#1464;&#1502;&#1462;&#1491; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1474;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500; &#1500;&#1456;&#1489;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1495;&#1463;&#1512; &#1488;&#1463;&#1507; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1474;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;: 


4. The Lord said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and hang them before the Lord, facing the sun, and then the flaring anger of the Lord will be removed from Israel.   &#1491;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1511;&#1463;&#1495; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1493;&#1465;&#1511;&#1463;&#1506; &#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1463;&#1497;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1504;&#1462;&#1490;&#1462;&#1491; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1493;&#1456;&#1497;&#1464;&#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1489; &#1495;&#1458;&#1512;&#1493;&#1465;&#1503; &#1488;&#1463;&#1507; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1513;&#1474;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;: 




5. Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Each of you shall kill the men who became attached to Baal Peor. 


You run off to your atheist sites cherry picking trying to make God look bad for his right to judge sinners and notice all the things you bring up happened before he God sacrificed himself to prevent him having to continue rendering these judgements on man in this manner.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You need a lesson in Hebrew. Please stop you're making a fool of yourself.

Job 38:5  Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it? 
Job 38:6  On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone, 
Job 38:7  when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

Morning star is a reference used for angels and well as stars in the skies. SATAN  and JESUS are not the same you are completely ignorant of the bible it is clear your hatred for God runs deep and is revealing.

If SATAN is my God why is he tempting my God ?

Mat 4:8  Again, the Devil took Him up into a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 
Mat 4:9  And he said to Him, All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me. 
Mat 4:10  Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve."


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


So it is neither murder nor barbaric to kill someone who worships another God. Unless, of course, it is a Muslim. Then it is murderous barbarism.

God sacrificed himself to prevent himself, do you realize just how stupid that sounds?


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As I noted, you're befuddled. 

There is no such thing as a "Natural disaster" when your designer gawds are tasked with responsibility for existence. The quaint notion of merciful gawds is in irreconcilable contradiction to biblical history of angry and capricious gawds who kill and maim indiscriminately.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No God has the right to render judgement for sin. It don't sound stupid,God offered atonement for all sin so he does not have to render judgement that you find offensive until the final judgement and it is also for his followers to be forgiven for their sin that allows them to gain everlasting life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Morning Star is singular and Lucifer is an angel.

And learn to read, that verse says Satan is the FATHER of Jesus through the House of David.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Whatever allows you to ignore truth.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You haven't studied anything. You're a propagandist. I've spelled out to you previously how you clearly have never studied the genesis fable.

The tale is full of contradictions and contrary to you're propaganda, you never were able to able to explain the fact that within the fable, you gawd lied while satan told the truth.

Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):


Genesis 2
_5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed._ 
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




_16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. _
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that _evil already exists_ else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has _nothing to do nor any knowledge of_ either good or evil. Hence evil _must_ predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing: 

Genesis 3
_1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil._ 
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are _any_ of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. 

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly _who_ (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world. 

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). 

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am not gonna continue to educate you people on the bible if you wish to debate the bible join a thread that is doing so. There are many of the educated that can see that accusations by the atheists are nothing more than cherry picking not realizing you can't get at the truth that way you must consider the whole bible on each subject.

There are many debates out there with scholars from both sides going at it by all means join those debates. You people over and over look for excuses not to believe and that is ok God gives you the right to choose your path.

Bottom line if God exists and to me there is no doubt he does exist,you will face his judgement and will you pass that judgement by the looks of your post it is a losing proposition.

One more thing hollie you people cherry pick from over 3,000 different translations thinking that one translation speaks for God. The truth takes a lot of work you can't just go copy and paste from your Ideological hate sites and think you just undid 3,000 years that the bible represents.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What truth am I ignoring ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You need to better understand the bible quit making your ignorance my problem lol.




Who is the morning Star and the Bright Morning star?

 Job 1:6; 2:1 mentions of sons of God as ancient. Job 1:6: &#8220;Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.&#8221; The Lord is in heaven and at a certain time He summons the angels to be present and accounted for. How do we know they are angels? First, Satan is required to appear before the Lord with them.

 God asks Job &#8220;Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it. To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, &#8220;When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?&#8221; (Job 38:4-6)

This could not mean Adam who had no sons until after he sinned. This was when the foundations of earth were being laid, before Adam was made on the 6th day. The angels were together, united as sons of God before a division occurred through the fall of a certain Cherub. So we see that the morning stars are a group and they are also called sons of God.

 The Hebrew word for sons of God is bene elohim. The term, sons of God in the Old Testament is used in a plural manner and refers to angels. Men are not called sons of God until the New Testament when the Holy Spirit resides in them. One becomes a son of God &#8211; children in his spiritual family (Jn.1:12; 1 Jn.3:1,10, 5:10) by being born again, by His Spirit living within us. We are adopted becoming part of a family of believers. Gal. 3:26-27: &#8220;For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus&#8221; (Rom.8:14,19; Lk.20:36). The word `son ` in this respect relates to possession, or that one thing belongs to another.

 The word morning stars is found only once in the Old Testament and is plural in Job 38:7. [KJV, NKJV, NASV all have the same words in Job.38.] The Hebrew word here for morning is boquer or dawn stars &#8211; they are symbolized as when the angels were together in unity. We see this symbology used when Satan states &#8220;I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.&#8221; His goal; to become the authority over all the &#8220;other&#8220; angels in heaven, something reserved only for God. 

 What we have is both the symbolic usage of angels (morning stars) and what God calls them, sons of God. In Job 1, 2:1 these angels include Satan. When the word star is used symbolically, it is for angels (Job 38:7; Rev. 1:20; 9:1; 12:4. with Num. 24:17 as an exception). We see this same type of symbolism in few places in the New Testament saying the same thing; showing the stars of heaven are symbolic of angels. 
 Mark 13:25: &#8220;the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in heaven will be shaken.&#8221;
Rev. 6:13: &#8220;And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind.&#8221;
Rev. 12:4 &#8220;His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth&#8221; the amount of angels in the rebellion.

 With this background we come to the usage of morning star. Isa 14:12:&#8221;How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!&#8221;

KJV - How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING
 NASV - How you have fallen from heaven, O STAR OF THE MORNING, SON OF THE DAWN
 NIV - How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, SON OF THE DAWN

 In the Hebrew, the name Satan is used 19 times in the Old Testament, 36 times in the New Testament. His actual original name in the Hebrew is Day Star (not Lucifer), the word describes his original state as &#8220;the shining one&#8221;. Even though his nature is changed from its original state, Satan can still transform himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). His inner nature is changed, but he is still able to look beautiful, so he is deceptive in character because this is not who he really is. 

 The fall of Satan is described in Isaiah 14:12-14: is more accurately translated How are you fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! Verse 12 summarizes his fall. Isa. 14:12 The Septuagint renders it, [Heoosforos], and the Vulgate, `Lucifer, the morning star&#8217; (from Barnes&#8217; Notes).

 Lucifer is NOT the correct translation of the name. Though it is accepted today this is not a name drawn from the Bible for Satan before his fall or after. &#8220;He is called the Day star- Hebrew Ben Shaachar- Son of the morning- Isa. 14:12 Hebrew heeyleel which means the bright and shining one, one who spreads light. This Hebrew noun is found nowhere else&#8221; (Barnes' Notes).

 Lucifer is the Latin name given to the Devil derived from this passage - light bearer. The King James Version unfortunately uses the Latin and translates the name to &#8220;Lucifer&#8221; (Isa. 14:12). The scholars that translated the King James Bible did not use the original Hebrew texts for all the Old Testament. In this passage they were influenced by Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible from the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, &#8220;Day star, son of the Dawn,&#8221; as &#8220;Lucifer.&#8221; The name 'Lucifer' (shining one) was associated to Satan (before his fall) and is now the accepted terminology. But because of this widespread usage of the name, it confuses people. In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (most identify as Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, and is diminished by the rising sun.

 Isa. 14:12: &#8220;Son of the morning&#8221; is a Hebraism of a bright star, having light; the offspring of morning. The word &#8216;son&#8217; often describes possession of the quality or characteristic described. It belongs to the morning; in other words it has the nature of that thing or title it is attached to. So the Son of the morning would present him as one who has light. 

 All the angels are called morning stars, collectively (Job 38:4-7), this is not a unique title. Satan is classed among the other morning stars as a created being, an angel. However, he being called the son of the morning separates him from among the other stars. The other angels are called stars, morning stars (symbolically), this title makes the point that he had a higher estate than the others.

 After the fall he is no longer called by this title. We have to understand that this being, now called Satan (meaning accuser) was created without flaws, perfect in his being until sin was manifested - which was pride). Satan is spoken of in Ezek. 28 &#8220;You were the anointed cherub who covers; in Ezek 28:16 he is called the covering cherub. He was the anointed angel day star, the son of the morning that was located &#8220;above God&#8217;s throne.&#8221;

Before his fall the light bearer bore the name of son of the morning, an important star (symbolic) as light giver. Once a shining and beautiful star, after he fell, his glory and position were taken away. Some Biblical scholars believe Jesus took this title upon himself, being called the bright morning star: just as he took the title of son of man later in his incarnation and the last Adam (1 Cor.15:45). Many names unperfected by man are applied to Jesus as He fulfilled the roles and offices of prophet, priest and King perfectly.

 Many make the mistake (some on purpose) that Lucifer is the &#8220;bright morning star&#8221; that the New Testament speaks of. Jesus is then confused with Lucifer because of this term being used. 

 There are three places the title morning star are seen in Scripture. 

 1) Rev. 2:28 &#8220;and I will give him the morning star.&#8221; In Revelation the Son of God promises to give the MORNING STAR to him that overcometh. . . this has nothing to do with the fallen angels known or Satan. Since one is overcoming the world and its temptations that come from Satan to receive the morning star. Morning star- proinos. Aster.
&#8220;Rev 2:28 The morning star ton (NT:3543) astera (NT:785) ton (NT:3543) proonion (NT:4355). &#8220;The star the morning one.&#8221; In Rev 22:16 Christ is the bright morning star. The victor will have Christ himself&#8221; (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)

 2) Rev 22:16: `Jesus is called THE &#8220;bright morning star&#8221;: Bright morning star- lampros-1) shining a) brilliant proinos- pertaining to the morning. Gr.aster-a star.

 This means we will have Christ Himself [as our reward], like God promised Abraham I am you exceeding great reward. This connects with Rev. 22:16: &#8220;I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.&#8221; Jesus is saying he alone is this, &#8220;I am the bright Morning Star.&#8221; Only here is the word bright is added to Morning Star, distinguishing Jesus from any angel.

 Bright &#8211; Gr. lampros-1) shining a) brilliant; figuratively, magnificent or sumptuous (in appearance): 

 Easton's Bible Dictionary states: a name figuratively given to Christ (Rev. 22:16; comp. 2 Pet. 1:19). When Christ promises that he will give the &#8220;morning star&#8221; to his faithful ones, he &#8220;promises that he will give to them himself, that he will give to them himself, that he will impart to them his own glory and a share in his own royal dominion; for the star is evermore the symbol of royalty (Matt. 2:2), being therefore linked with the sceptre (Num. 24:17). All the glory of the world shall end in being the glory of the Church.&#8221; Trench's Comm.

 3) 2 Peter 1 &#8220;And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; (NKJ)
 The confusion comes from a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:19, previously misidentified the Morning Star [Satan] will assume the ascendancy in hearts of believers:

 KJV . . . until the day dawns, and the DAY STAR arises in your hearts
 NASV . . . until the day dawns and the MORNING STAR arises in your hearts
 NIV . . . until the day dawns and the MORNING STAR rises in your hearts. 

 In 2 Peter 1:19 the word in Greek- phosphoros, literally is, &#8220;light-bringer,&#8221; from light-bearing, to give light, It is only translated in the KJV this way, This is the only place the name day star is used. It is not the same word used elsewhere.

2 Peter 1 &#8220;And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts&#8221;
This is referring to Scripture as our continual light, a light in darkness that gives us instruction until the real light comes, which is Jesus. This later portion could be describing the transformation of believers to immortality. As A.T. Robertson points out &#8220;usual construction for future time. A late compound verb diaugazoo (NT:1293) (Polybius, Plutarch, papyri) from dia (NT:1211) and augee (NT:820), to shine through, here only in the New Testament.

The morning star is a far more accurate translation than day star. What distinguishes Jesus from the morning star is the definite article &#8220;ha&#8221;, THE. In the same way an angel of the Lord and THE Angel of the Lord distinguishes the messenger from an ordinary angel and the pre-incarnate Christ. 

 Malachi 4:2: &#8220;But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise&#8221; This concept of "dawn" is applied to the Messiah.

 'Shachar' = 'dawn' as in coming out of the dark (God separates light from dark in creation in Genesis and in new creation in John); Shachar Ha Ira chasecha l'shir' - &#8220;morning by morning new mercies I see'. 

 The syntax is a distinguishing feature. When it is Christ it always a reference to Him by title; when a reference to another the term is used in substitution of a personal name.     

 son of the morning- head of the angels, associated with Day star before he fell.
 THE morning star- Jesus (singular)
 THE Bright morning star

 Son of the morning (is exclusively the devils title before he fell) is not the same as the bright morning star (used only for Jesus), which makes the titles difference between Jesus and Satan.




Who is the morning Star and the


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The truth is, you are the last person who is capable of teaching anyone, anything about the bibles.

Your lack of any meaningful response to my delineation of the genesis fable and how that tale reveals a confused and contradictory telling of creation is really quite revealing but nonetheless predictable. As with so many hyper-religious thumpers, you really have no clue regarding how the genesis tale actually reveals an angry, confused message steeped in fears and superstitions. As with most thumpers, you never actually read the fable with an attempt at critical analysis. You just blindly accepted what you were fed and never thought to question the dogma.

The really sad part is that you cant accept the fact of a tale that depicts angry, vengeful gawds who lie, deceive and destroy their own creation.

Is this answer more magical? Nope. But is it the _truth_? Yes. The truth isn't a guarantee to be comforting or pleasant or fun. But which is the answer that solves the mystery? Which is the answer that by definition precludes you from discerning the truth if you just assert it as the truth?

Lastly, it's comically tragic that you falsely hurl the "copy and paste" accusation as a means to defend your inability to offer any relevant commentary of your own. 

What's the matter, Harun Yahya doesn't have something you can cut and paste as a means to defend your angry, vicious gawds?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Been there, done that, memorized parts of it too.


> Rev 12:7  And there was war in Heaven. Michael and his angels warring against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels warred,
> Rev 12:8  but did not prevail. Nor was place found for them in Heaven any more.
> Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
> 
> ...



Ranting about the "end times" is only hurting whatever tatters of credibility you are still desperately clinging to.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It is becoming ever more apparent that YWC is in a death spiral. He is just throwing bible verses at the wall in the desperate hope that one of them might stick. He has nothing else of any value to offer. Perhaps it is best if we give him some time to regain his composure and some semblance of sanity.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Ecxept the KJV translates it:

Rev 22: 16 I, Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, *and* the bright and morning star.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You must not be reading my posts because I have given commentary on my views of the accusations that were being leveled.

The problem is your disdain for accurate commentary you prefer trumped up unfounded views.

Have a good day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The CEV

Rev 22:16  I am Jesus! And I am the one who sent my angel to tell all of you these things for the churches. I am David's Great Descendant, and I am also the bright morning star. 


Isa 14:12

(ASV)  How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! 

(BBE)  How great is your fall from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the earth, low among the dead bodies! 

(KJV)  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 

(KJV+)  HowH349 art thou fallenH5307 from heaven,H4480 H8064 O Lucifer,H1966 sonH1121 of the morning!H7837 how art thou cut downH1438 to the ground,H776 which didst weakenH2522 H5921 the nations!H1471 

(MKJV)  How you are fallen from the heavens, O shining star, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 25, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I have probably been debating these issues longer then you have existed on this planet.


----------



## SmartRafal (May 25, 2013)

Do the god exist ? That's very diffucult question witch anyone of us can answer. Trully is that the god is the love BUT "THE CHURCH WANT CHARITY OF HIM LOVE". For Ages believe's in god helped people to understand the pain of war, the pain of friend, family deads. Maybe he is existing in spiritual things but i don't think so. The churchial god created an earth on 7 days. All of the God's have simillary characters. So for me god exists but not a Jesus but as us. We're the god's. Everyonce of us is the god and the prays going to the better us for help. The god's home is in universe and ours prays are flying to the "magically powerfull things" that we can't undestand.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And in all that time you haven't managed to learn anything. Age in your case does not bring wisdom, merely experience. If you had any shred of wisdom you would know that your pathetic attempts to claim seniority are laughable. For starters you have no way of credibly proving your age or verifying the age of anyone else. Furthermore you claimed to have worked in the field of "genetic mutations" for 11 years. If you are as old as you allege then you are probably the janitor there. All that you have managed to accomplish is to demonstrate that you rely upon something that you don't even comprehend. Now that is both pathetic and sad. Have a nice day.


----------



## numan (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You should go see your optometrist more often !!
.


----------



## numan (May 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I have probably been debating these issues longer then you have existed on this planet.


Was it an early onset of senility?
.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I have learned a few things from your side. you have a great disdain for anyone who does not believe as you and your side is very intolerant for believers I wonder if you even know why ? have a good day!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



My eyes are fine thank you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I have probably been debating these issues longer then you have existed on this planet.
> ...



I am sorry that my education allowed me to see the truth and reveal the foolish things I once believed. I was once like many of you,brainwashed.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course, had you been raised in a culture with a different collection of gawds, you would be the fundie extremist who is critical of your currently configured gawds. 

You're really just a mere, pedestrian zealot.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Give me a summary of what you're ?


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And more slithering on your part.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Another of my responses goes unanswered.

Give me a summary of what you're ?


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Honestly, you seem to have a desperate need for confirmation from me as to the existence of your magical gawds. I'm afraid that I have no means, methods or mechanisms to confirm your super-magical gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Don't flatter yourself I am just exposing your Ideological agenda one post at a time.


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2013)

1 Ch 21: 1  And *Satan* stood up against Israel, and *provoked David to number Israel.*

2 Sam 24: 1  And again the anger of* the LORD* was kindled against Israel, and he *moved David *against them *to* say, Go, *number Israel* and Judah.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> No God has the right to render judgement for sin. It don't sound stupid,God offered atonement for all sin so he does not have to render judgement that you find offensive until the final judgement and it is also for his followers to be forgiven for their sin that allows them to gain everlasting life.




what is allowed is life in the Everlasting - the visual content of your present life without necessarily a physiological form ... managing the Garden is always for a welcome soul without evil for those who can accomplish the feat - there is no JC to do that "for" you..


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It is true - your desperate need for others to support your bias conformation. 

As is typical for creationists (absent a science vocabulary or training in the physical sciences),  you recoil at any mention of evolutionary science. Science flatly contradicts the book of Genesis and is thus a direct threat to your fundamentalist theology, a threat to your worldview of super-magical gawds, a threat to the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.

On the other side, spreading of errors and lies called _creationism_ is a direct attack on good science, open investigation and learning. Fundies continue a campaign to reduce or remove evolutionary biology from public school science classrooms. This assault is not based on scientific arguments, but on religious objections. Proponents of creationism are frequently not scientists and couldn't tell you a thing about evolution if you asked them.

More often than not, they are fundie Christians looking to force their fears and superstitions on others.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You let me know when you're ready to grow up and have this discussion


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There's no discussion to be had when you slither away in face of challenges to your fundie creationism.

What really matters most regarding the issue of science and exploration is quality science education in public schools. The primary issue of contention separating science and Christian creationism is the _actual_ science. In creationism, the outcome that the bible is literally true is all that matters, and any scientific finding or empirical evidence that contradicts this preconceived conclusion is ignored or demonized. We see that consistently with your posts. Your revulsion for science and education is palpable, even with written text.

The study of evolution does not endorse any supernatural / religious viewpoint, as can be seen from the fact that people of ALL beliefs can accept it as true. Evolution is true science by virtue of it being formed _from_ the evidence, not (as in the case of Christian creationism) _in spite_ of the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> 1 Ch 21: 1  And *Satan* stood up against Israel, and *provoked David to number Israel.*
> 
> 2 Sam 24: 1  And again the anger of* the LORD* was kindled against Israel, and he *moved David *against them *to* say, Go, *number Israel* and Judah.



Who Incited David to Number Israel?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min. 


Census-taking under the Law of Moses was not inherently evil. In fact, God actually commanded Moses to number the Israelite soldiers on two different occasionsonce in the second year after deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and again about forty years later near the end of Israels wanderings in the desert (Numbers 1:1-3,19; 26:2-4). Even though the book of Numbers describes many of their experiences while wandering through a barren land, the book takes its name (first assigned by the translators of the Septuagint) from these two numberings of the Israelites. Indeed, the taking of a census was a legitimate practice under the old law (cf. Exodus 30:11-16). Sometimes, however, ones motives can turn lawful actions into sinful deeds (cf. Matthew 6:1-18). Such was the case with King David when he decided to number the Israelites in the latter part of his reign. God had not commanded a census be taken, nor did David instigate it for some noble cause. Instead, the Bible implies that Davids intentions (and thus his actions) were dishonorable, foolish, and sinful (cf. 2 Samuel 24:3,10ff.).

For many Bible readers, the parallel accounts that describe Davids numbering of Israel (found in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) pose a serious problem. Why does 2 Samuel 24:1 state that God moved David against Israel, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel ? Can both passages be right, or is this a contradiction?

The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated moved (NKJV) or incited (NASV), is identical in both passages. God and Satans actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or temptedcf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.). Throughout the Bible, Gods allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord.

The book of Exodus records how God hardened Pharaohs heart (Exodus 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:1; et al.), but it was not that God directly forced Pharaoh to reject His will. Rather, God hardened his heart in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to reject His will. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh, even accompanying His Word with miraclesto confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist Gods demands. God merely provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the initiator of the circumstances that led to Pharaohs sin, but He was not the author (or direct cause) of Pharaohs defiance (see Butt and Miller, 2003).

Another instance where this idiomatic language can be found is in the book of Job. In fact, the situation regarding God and Satan inciting David to number Israel probably more closely parallels the first two chapters of Job than any other passage of Scripture. Satan went into the presence of God on two different occasions in Job 1-2. The first time, he charged that the righteous man Job only served God because of the blessings God showered upon him (1:9-11). God thus permitted Satan to afflict Job with suffering, telling Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person (1:12). After Satan used both humans and natural agency to destroy Jobs wealth and all of his children (1:13-19), Satan returned to the Lords presence. Notice the exchange of words between God and Satan (in view of the Hebrew idiomatic thought: what God permits, He is said to do).


Then the Lord said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause. So Satan answered the Lord and said, Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face! And the Lord said to Satan, Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life. So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head (Job 2:3-7, emp. added).

Even though God knew that Satan was the direct cause for Jobs suffering (recorded in chapter one), He told Satan: You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause (2:3, emp. added). As a result of Jobs abstaining from sin during this time of suffering, Satan then proposed a new challenge to God, saying, But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face (vs. 4). In essence, God said, Okay. I will, but He did not do it directly. He merely allowed Satan to do it: Behold, he [Job] is in your hand, but spare his life (vs. 6). So Satan struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head (vs. 7). The dialog between God and Satan in Job chapter 2 leaves no doubt that what God permits to take place often is described by sacred writers as having been done by God. The inspired author of Job even reiterated this point forty chapters later, when he wrote: Then all his [Jobs] brothers, all his sisters, and all those who had been his acquaintances before, came to him and ate food with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversity that the Lord had brought upon him (42:11, emp. added).

In his commentary on 2 Samuel, Burton Coffman made mention that the same principle still is operative in the Christian dispensation.


Paul pointed out that people who do not love the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness are actually incited by God to believe a falsehood that they might be condemned (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned, etc. (1992, p. 329).

Those discussed in 2 Thessalonians 2 made a decision to reject the truth of Gods Word (cf. vs. 10), and believe a lie. God sends a delusion, in the sense that He controls the worlds drama.

The problem of how a loving God (1 John 4:8) can send a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11), harden someones heart (Exodus 9:12), or incite someone to sin (as in the case of David numbering Israel2 Samuel 24:1), can be compared to Gods work in nature. In one sense, a person could speak of God killing someone who jumps from a 100-story building to his death, because it was God Who set in motion the law of gravity (but He did not force the person over the edge). Some inspired writers wrote from this viewpoint, which was customary in their culture.

Truly, similar to how Pharaoh hardened his heart because God gave him occasion to do such, and similar to how Job suffered because God allowed Satan to strike Job with calamity, God allowed Satan to incite David to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). Israel suffered as a direct result of Satans workings in the life of King David, which God allowed. Thus, both God and Satan legitimately could be said to have incited the kingbut in different ways (and for different reasons).

Apologetics Press - Who Incited David to Number Israel?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Grow up,I am now gonna ignore your posts once again have a good day.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Slithering away because your specious opinions are being challenged.

If memory serves, this is the 8th time you have blustered about putting me on ignore, or threatened to ignore my posts, only to return when several pages of the thread have scrolled by and you feel less likely to be called out for... well... slithering away.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> It is true - your desperate need for others to support your bias conformation.
> 
> As is typical for creationists (absent a science vocabulary or training in the physical sciences),  you recoil at any mention of evolutionary science. Science flatly contradicts the book of Genesis and is thus a direct threat to your fundamentalist theology, a threat to your worldview of super-magical gawds, a threat to the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> ...




try and forget the corrupt Bible, the true message is simply a possible conclusion at the apex of knowledge as a key for existence beyond breath to the Everlasting .... Atheist need not apply.

the thread has yet to be invalidated by anyone that however life began it was Spiritual in nature and continues to the present - and (implied) without it will ultimately lead to that species demise. ie - denigration of the Garden is a spiritless will propagated by Atheism for the immediate comforts unwarranted for future generations that will perish because of it.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It is true - your desperate need for others to support your bias conformation.
> ...



Your comment is incorrect. 

I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.

You have not invalidated my invalidation.  

See? Ain't countering your "prove a negative" with a similar "prove a negative", just grand?


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > 1 Ch 21: 1  And *Satan* stood up against Israel, and *provoked David to number Israel.*
> ...


So basically, no matter what the English words say, they are always wrong and you can make them say anything you want.

So if you say in English, saved by grace and not by works, that could mean saved by works and not by grace if you want it to. The bible in English is completely worthless.


----------



## numan (May 26, 2013)

'
Trying to rationalize God's actions in the Bible is really silly.

Ancient people, in general, did not have notions of of a high, noble, transcendent God -- indeed, many people today, even on this august forum, have exceedingly crude notions of deity. That came in with the Greek philosophers.  Ancient Gods were tricky, dangerous, emotional, and full of what we call vices. They had to be placated and flattered, but no one expected them to be nice.
.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No but most of your attacks are from versions that contain the many mistakes in translation. The kjv and the niv in my opinion are the worst translations but the truth can be found in any version its just some translations have little more little errors from translation. When I find a problem like you point out I can just research the verse in question and compare it with other translations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Trying to rationalize God's actions in the Bible is really silly.
> 
> Ancient people, in general, did not have notions of of a high, noble, transcendent God -- indeed, many people today, even on this august forum, have exceedingly crude notions of deity. That came in with the Greek philosophers.  Ancient Gods were tricky, dangerous, emotional, and full of what we call vices. They had to be placated and flattered, but no one expected them to be nice.
> .



There is only one God maybe that is the problem for some.


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


Prove it!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



You don't have to look any further than nature to prove it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You mean the factual scientific evidence in nature that supports evolution is also somehow "proof" that there is only a single deity? No point in expecting you to provide a rational explanation for that leap of illogic.


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Baloney!


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Nature told me that there are 6.02214X×10^23 Gods per universe.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What nonsense. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation. 

As we've seen, you cannot identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. 

You've heard the expression "put up or shut up"?


----------



## newpolitics (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The natural does not prove the supernatural. There is no logical inference here, only an assertion without proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I believe there is no possibility that this fully self contained planet bursting with life is a product of chance. I believe nature reveals a designer not naturalism. You people cam believe as you wish I don't believe in miracles.


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Nature reveals a "designer" who has everything in the universe smashing into each other in a completely disorganized manner. A "designer" of perpetual commotion.


----------



## freedombecki (May 26, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/axh4U2f51Hw]He Lives! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean a single designer, does it?

I thought this was in response to your contention there is only one god.  

Also, you do NOT believe in miracles?  So are you saying god does not work miracles?


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Your comment is incorrect.
> 
> I have in fact invalidated the claim that life began by "spiritual" (supernatural), means.
> 
> ...





you have not "invalidated" that life itself is spiritual - neither tangible or material, or so by its presence validates the same as that of its origin.


----------



## newpolitics (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



But, you do believe in miracles. Stop saying you don't, and inferring that naturalists do. You are simply trying to reverse the deck as a form of rhetoric, when logic does not follow. Naturalism, by definition, precludes the possibilities of natural laws being broken. Only a supernatural agent could produce a suspension of natural laws or miracles, therefore, miracles are only possible in your worldview. 

As for what you believe, that's fine. But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


 I believe and trust in the bible it says there is only one true God. What God does is through his natural ability may seem like a miracle to man but it is not  miracles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 26, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


 Nature if it was not designed it was a miracle after miracle chance after chance that sounds like miracles to me.


----------



## newpolitics (May 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you want to change the definition of a miracle, then sure, but this is an equivocation fallacy. All I see from you is more proofs by assertion without logic or evidence. You play with semantics to suit your rhetorical needs.


----------



## itfitzme (May 27, 2013)

What a load of crap.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment is incorrect.
> ...



Been away from this thread a few days, living life... Amazing, I see a few more pages have been added, and the above exchange is about the only thing said, that is on topic. The rest of it seems to be theological arguments about the bible and Christian interpretation of god. 

This question is for the Christians AND the god-haters... Can god not be imagined in any other incarnation than theological ones? Because, it seems like this debate keeps being steered toward a theological tit-for-tat, which never accomplishes a thing. This is precisely why I refused to allow my OP to be perverted into a theological argument. I've tried to avoid turning the thread into the same old argument based on understanding of religion and religious disagreement. 

Religions are evidence of man's intrinsic connection to spirituality. Even the bible and Christianity, are man's understanding and interpretations of this spiritual power. The Bible and Christians can be proven completely wrong, and spiritual god can still exist. Defeating the Christian incarnation of god, doesn't defeat the argument for god. Defeating the incarnation of any "god" does not disprove all spiritual power greater than self.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



To pontificate is to talk in a dogmatic and pompous manner. This is repeatedly what you seem to be doing, not me. I have avoided dogma, and repeatedly corrected you and others, who have assumed I am presenting a religious argument. 

Your irrational argument over "which came first" has been discredited and dismissed as nonsensical. If humans don't exist, there isn't even "reality" because there is no one here to formulate the language in which we comprehend reality. I could just as easily claim physical existence also doesn't exist without humans to recognize it. However, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, the sound waves are still created. You claim that "spiritual" can't exist without humans first existing to recognize it. You've not demonstrated this theory in any way. It relies on nonsensical logic. 

You are the one pontificating here, and you are pontificating nonsense.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

> But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.



No one else? Looks to me like, a lot of people acknowledge something spiritual, and only a few people refuse to open their eyes to the possibility. Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is. That is just a tad egocentric.


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You prove me right with every answer you give.

Why would I have to demonstrate a nonsense Straw Man YOU made up????? What I said was the spiritual does not exist without humans to CREATE it, which I proved with my example of the composer and your example of humans using red ocher 70k years ago. The fact that you had no choice but create a Straw Man proves that even you know I am correct but you are simply too dishonest to admit it.
Thank you.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment is incorrect.
> ...



You have not "invalidated" my "invalidation", thus, the presence of my "invalidation" validates its own origin. 

I was trying to offer a sentence as circular and self-refuting as yours. 

I&#8217;m not tasked with refuting your  _&#8220;&#8230; because I say so&#8221;_, argument. You have made no argument for &#8220;spirituality&#8221;, thus there is really nothing to &#8220;invalidate&#8221;. Why would you think claims to supernaturalism are by default true when you cannot define your claims and when you cannot even define your own argument?

What is truly laughable about the &#8220;spiritualist&#8221; argument is the lack of any affirmative description of what &#8220;spiritual-ness&#8221; really is, other than references to gawds and reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the &#8220;spiritual&#8221; ministry literature is there an explanation of how anyone defines their &#8220;spiritual-ness&#8221;. There is no doctrinal literature such as _"The spiritual scenario is described as..." _  Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: _"spiritual-ness uses the following means, methods and creative processes in defining spirituality..." _

And ultimately, we will never hear the&#8230; (here it comes&#8230 creation ministries announce: _"We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which spirituality leads us to creator gawds"_  Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their &#8220;spirit worlds&#8221;.

Creationist can offer no explanations of their &#8220;spirit&#8221; claims. They have found no physical evidence for any of their &#8220;spirits&#8221;. Very simply, this &#8220;spiritual-ness&#8221; you're alluding to is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> > But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.
> 
> 
> 
> No one else? Looks to me like, a lot of people acknowledge something spiritual, and only a few people refuse to open their eyes to the possibility. Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is. That is just a tad egocentric.



Well... yeah. A lot of people acknowledge space aliens, a flat earth, Marshall Applewhite knew what he was talking about and any number of things. Yet, are you so closed-minded that that you would refuse Marshall's "_cruise to nowhere_", travel itinerary?

_Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is_.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



My reaction to the entirety of your argument(s) is that you're pressing theology while trying to cloak your religious view under a burqa of some vague and undefined term: "spirituality".


----------



## newpolitics (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> > But, please don't call something proof of the supernatural when no one else but you can see it.
> 
> 
> 
> No one else? Looks to me like, a lot of people acknowledge something spiritual, and only a few people refuse to open their eyes to the possibility. Because you are closed-minded and intolerant, doesn't mean everyone is. That is just a tad egocentric.



I don't believe I was addressing you, illogical one who can't form a coherent argument. You shouldn't talk about egocentrism. It's too hilarious, which makes it hard to type.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



You can continue to use religious terminology and insinuate that I am dishonestly trying to promote a religious agenda, but the thread clearly shows where I have repeatedly clarified my position on organized religion. The thing you hate, religion, is a manifestation of spirituality. You can not show me to be pontificating any religious incarnations of god in this entire thread, to the contrary, you see me repeatedly state the opposite. 

Spirituality, the practice of humans worshiping, acknowledging, or connecting to a power or force greater than self, not of the physical realm, is not a debatable topic, it does exist, we have thousands and thousands of years worth of evidence to show that this does indeed exist. Religion is evidence this spirituality exists. Spiritual nature, by definition, has no physical attribute, therefore, is not supportable by physical evidence. A spiritual entity or supreme power, is not provable to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature. 

None of this has to do with religion or religious dogma, which could all be totally incorrect, in the depiction of deities, and subjective absolutes. I can never prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god, but if you accept and acknowledge spiritual evidence, I believe I have definitively proven god exists in the OP.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 They really are not grasping your argument. If you can't produce evidence of God they will not accept evidence for spirituality. They are and will be close minded until its to late. Some I feel will come to their senses. Most  are so intolerant they are not open to the possibility of a designer even though they don't have evidence on how life came in to existence nor evidence proving God is a myth.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That's silly. Religions are evidence of mans' fears and superstitions. That's precisely why gods have been abandoned as mankind has evolved and learned. The gods of fire, thunder, lightning, etc., have all been superseded by knowledge of the natural world. That's also why the many gods of the past have been replaced by a one-stop shopping god of convenience.

Of course. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Why are fundie Christians so willfully ignorant? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Ultimately, you know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


An example of paranoia and the siege mentality that afflicts religious zealots. Their paranoia often manifests as an "us vs. them" mentality with the threats of eternal damnation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Hollow you finally gave me a summary of what you're thanks. Oh and its everlasting judgment its either everlasting life or everlasting death.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Yahweh has been around for atleast 6,000 years with and without the scriptures. The Almighty is not going anywhere.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And as noted, human invented gawds come and go, as will Yahweh, Jehovah or whatever other name you ascribe to your gawds.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> That's silly. Religions are evidence of mans' fears and superstitions. That's precisely why gods have been abandoned as mankind has evolved and learned. The gods of fire, thunder, lightning, etc., have all been superseded by knowledge of the natural world. That's also why the many gods of the past have been replaced by a one-stop shopping god of convenience.



Religions are evidence of man's spirituality, not superstition and fear, and we can prove this. Superstitious belief and fear of the unknown has been largely tackled by Science, which has been around 1,200-1,500 years or so. As science has explained natural phenomenon, we see a precipitous drop in those who adhere to superstition and superstitious belief. We see fear of the unknown vanish in the light of knowledge through scientific understanding. What we DO NOT see, is any sort of real change in human spirituality. The gods of fire, thunder and lightning, did not vanish whenever science explained these phenomenon, that happened many many years before, with the advent of monotheism. So what you are doing, is painting an abstract tapestry of various conjectures  that are simply not realistic or true, in order to prop up a theory that fails. 



> Of course. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.



They certainly didn't vanish because of science which hadn't been invented. 



> Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.



Perhaps, but these are RELIGIONS, not human spirituality. It is such an important distinction, I have made it clearly throughout this thread, and continue to correct those who wish to make this a debate about religion or religious incarnations of god. Just as old outdated science is abandoned, so is old outdated religion. Unchanged, is human spiritual nature. It remains, just as human inquisitiveness remains. 



> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Why are fundie Christians so willfully ignorant? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism.



This is just not true. Through all the ages, religion has come and gone, humans have moved away from religious beliefs and then moved back toward them. Today, nearly 95% of humans believe in something greater than self, and about 5% are Nihilists, who believe in nothing greater than self. That statistic is virtually unchanged throughout mankind. Levels or degrees of religious faith, may change dramatically, or even fade away entirely from time to time, but human spirituality remains as strong as ever. Science simply hasn't rendered human spirituality irrelevant, or the problems with radicalism would not exist. You've not proven your point, although, you have helped to support my argument. 



> Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Ultimately, you know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.



But science has not killed human spirituality, far from it. When you start speaking of gods returning to this earth, salvation, judgement, afterlife, you are speaking of religious beliefs, which are the byproduct of human spirituality. I do not argue religious beliefs, I don't have religious beliefs, I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature. I am not terrified by science, which can never prove there is no god, and can never prove there is no need for human spirituality. 

The more you talk, the more you reaffirm that this is about your disdain for religion, and you don't comprehend the difference between religion and spirituality.


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2013)

You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue.  Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.

Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science.  Humanity knows a lot more than it once did.  But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions.  If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.

Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.  What we have seen is just what might be expected, a refinement of those beliefs, a trimming away of those things which can no longer be explained through supernatural means.

You give humanity and science far too much credit if you think our scientific advancement has progressed so far that, barring the spiritual connection you posit, religious and supernatural beliefs should no longer exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

I believe that when a person dies that is it it described in the bible like a state of sleep. I believe we are just a memory until the resurrection. I believe the spirit of a person is the breathe of life and I believe the soul is the blood. A living breathing organism is a living soul. If the blood of the organism is lost the soul is dead. If the breathe of an organism is lost that soul dies.


----------



## daws101 (May 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another classic false declaration


----------



## daws101 (May 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I believe that when a person dies that is it it described in the bible like a state of sleep. I believe we are just a memory until the resurrection. I believe the spirit of a person is the breathe of life and I believe the soul is the blood. A living breathing organism is a living soul. If the blood of the organism is lost the soul is dead. If the breathe of an organism is lost that soul dies.


belief is only evidence of belief nothing more..
oh yeah, dead is dead...


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue.  Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.
> 
> Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science.  Humanity knows a lot more than it once did.  But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions.  If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.
> 
> ...



First, you need to divorce yourself from religion when thinking about this topic, otherwise, you will continue to assume religion and spirituality are the same thing. Just set aside religions for a minute, and think in terms of human spirit. As Breeze pointed out brilliantly, "LIFE" is spiritual. The magical thing that we call "life" and "living" is a spiritual thing, not physical. Yes, physical things are happening to perpetuate a state known as living, but the actual state itself is spiritual. 

There are indeed many unknowns, even with the best science. The questions of "WHY?" are often not even addressed by science, they can't be. For instance, we don't know why the properties of electricity behave as they do, we know how, we don't know why. We can explain how we see things in color, but why? Science is inadequate at explaining the WHY part. This is where spirituality comes into play, and it has been around since man discovered fire. 

Now, we have to ask ourselves, why are humans the only creatures of life who have this need for comfort, explanation of the unknown, fear of death, etc.? We don't see dogs and cats trying to figure it all out, or being afraid of dying. This is purely an exclusive human attribute....curiously, we are also the only living things that have spirituality and worship. I do not believe that is a coincidence. So what you are basically explaining spirituality with, could also be the result of spiritual connection. We need comfort and explanation because we are spiritually connected, while other forms of life are not. Meaning, you have your assumption reversed. We're not spiritual because we need comfort and explanation, we need comfort and explanation because we are spiritual.


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue.  Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.
> ...



Why humans are the only creatures asking these questions is easily answered.  We are the only ones CAPABLE of doing so.  I'm really not sure why any other explanation is needed.

We are, minus some minor examples, the only species to commonly use tools.  We are the only species to have advanced any form of technology.  We are the only species that, as far as we can tell, use a complex language.  There are many things humanity does that other animal species do not, almost all of which are a result of our higher intelligence.

More, I am certain I could find many people who would say that at least some animals seek out comfort, just not explanation.  Your dog doesn't need you to provide reasons for why it is in pain, but it will look for comfort when it hurts.

You bring up human worship and spirituality as though they are the only unique aspect to humanity.  You describe the differences between humans and other animal species as though we are not more intelligent than those species, as though other species are known for having the ability to ask the questions that humans do.  If you cannot accept that humanity is the only species that can ask such questions (as far as we are aware) then there is no reason to continue this line of discussion.  You are, as you love to accuse others, being closed minded in such a case.

As to removing religion from the discussion, it is YOU who has brought up religion and worship as your major evidence of the existence of the spiritual.  

To the idea that life is spiritual....*sigh*.  Once again, a clear definition is needed or it is a statement with no real meaning.  Fine, life is spiritual.  What does that mean?  What is it about life that makes it spiritual?  If life is spiritual, why are humans the only creatures with a spiritual connection?  What evidence is there that life is spiritual?

This continues to be a matter of you assigning explanations that don't actually explain anything, throwing the word spiritual around as though it answers questions when there is no clear definition for how you are using the word in the first place.  At this point I consider your definition of spiritual to be, "anything for which there is no answer".


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

> Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.


You are entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion. Simple logic dictates, if spirituality existed solely because man needs a way to explain the unexplained, then as man explained these things through science, spirituality would have all but vanished, like superstition. Once was the time, people adhered to superstitious beliefs... religiously! As science explained natural phenomenon, these beliefs faded away or remained as a quaint novelty. But science, as amazing as it has been, simply has not replaced the need in humans to be spiritually connected. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have also been very spiritually inclined. Newton transcribed most of the Protestant bible in his later years, and penned many religious writings. Francis Collins, the man who mapped the human genome, is a Christian. Even some of Steven Hawkins observations include the consideration of a non-physical part of our universe that we aren't aware of in the physical.


----------



## daws101 (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion. Simple logic dictates, if spirituality existed solely because man needs a way to explain the unexplained, then as man explained these things through science, spirituality would have all but vanished, like superstition. Once was the time, people adhered to superstitious beliefs... religiously! As science explained natural phenomenon, these beliefs faded away or remained as a quaint novelty. But science, as amazing as it has been, simply has not replaced the need in humans to be spiritually connected. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have also been very spiritually inclined. Newton transcribed most of the Protestant bible in his later years, and penned many religious writings. Francis Collins, the man who mapped the human genome, is a Christian. Even some of Steven Hawkins observations include the consideration of a non-physical part of our universe that we aren't aware of in the physical.


isn't a matter of opinion? spiritualty is all opinion...especially when you factor out the unprovable "spiritual evidence".


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion. Simple logic dictates, if spirituality existed solely because man needs a way to explain the unexplained, then as man explained these things through science, spirituality would have all but vanished, like superstition. Once was the time, people adhered to superstitious beliefs... religiously! As science explained natural phenomenon, these beliefs faded away or remained as a quaint novelty. But science, as amazing as it has been, simply has not replaced the need in humans to be spiritually connected. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have also been very spiritually inclined. *Newton transcribed most of the Protestant bible in his later years, and penned many religious writings. Francis Collins, the man who mapped the human genome, is a Christian. Even some of Steven Hawkins observations include the consideration of a non-physical part of our universe that we aren't aware of in the physical*.



States of mind are not superceeded by scientific knowledge. Entering into a trance state (AKA spirituality) via prayer, meditation, etc can be measured by medical equipment. Ergo it is physical not spiritual.

Your ignorance is boundless. Newton was an alchemist who would have been burned at the stake if his real views on religion became widely known. He did extensive studying into the occult and even wrote an apocalyptic prophecy for 2060.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Why are we the only living things capable of this, and also, the only living things who are spiritually connected? I agree, we are capable, but why? And why hasn't any other living thing, achieved this capability or anything remotely similar? You see, I think all our unique attributes of human imagination, creativity, cognitive reasoning, inquisitiveness, humanity, wisdom, intelligence, etc.,etc.,etc..., come from our other unique attribute, our ability to connect spiritually to some power greater than self. This is the thing that makes us different from a chimp who shares 98% of our DNA. 



> We are, minus some minor examples, the only species to commonly use tools.  We are the only species to have advanced any form of technology.  We are the only species that, as far as we can tell, use a complex language.  There are many things humanity does that other animal species do not, almost all of which are a result of our higher intelligence.



Again, I believe it is not a coincidence we are also very spiritual and spiritually connected to something greater than self, which drives human ambition. Our species is certainly not superior at everything, have you figured out what birds are saying to each other when they sing? Why bees and ants can find their way back home or organize and work together in colonies and hives? Why birds can migrate back and forth to the same nests, year after year, generation after generation? Lots of things are better than humans at doing certain things, but we are the ones who have advanced our species to where we are.  Spirituality is a big big part of that, regardless of how much you'd like to dismiss it. 



> You bring up human worship and spirituality as though they are the only unique aspect to humanity.  You describe the differences between humans and other animal species as though we are not more intelligent than those species, as though other species are known for having the ability to ask the questions that humans do.  If you cannot accept that humanity is the only species that can ask such questions (as far as we are aware) then there is no reason to continue this line of discussion.  You are, as you love to accuse others, being closed minded in such a case.



Well, I think I just addressed this in my last paragraph, but again, I realize where man is and how intelligent we are, but I also realize we have been intrinsically and inseparably tied to spirituality for all of our existence as well. I don't think this is coincidental, and I don't think you can use our success to explain away the very thing that led to our success. 



> As to removing religion from the discussion, it is YOU who has brought up religion and worship as your major evidence of the existence of the spiritual.



But this is because you demand some sort of evidence. I am not claiming religion is right and the god I am referring to in the OP is the god of Abe. I have repeatedly made the clarification, I am speaking of god as a metaphor, for whatever it is humans are connected to spiritually, because they most certainly have been connected to something. I think this connection sometimes manifests itself into an undesirable religious belief, but for me, that is just more evidence that humans do make some kind of spiritual connection to something. 



> To the idea that life is spiritual....*sigh*.  Once again, a clear definition is needed or it is a statement with no real meaning.  Fine, life is spiritual.  What does that mean?  What is it about life that makes it spiritual?  If life is spiritual, why are humans the only creatures with a spiritual connection?  What evidence is there that life is spiritual?



You can explain how life works physically, you can't explain why. It just does. We have things that are inorganic, which simply exist as matter. And we have things which are organic, and these are special, they have a special attribute the inorganic things do not have. They are "blessed" with the ability to grow. Taken to their simplest molecule, they are made up of exactly the same things as the inorganic, but there is something which makes them different. We can explain how these things work, the various chemicals reacting, etc. But we can not explain WHY? 

Why are humans the only creatures with spiritual connection? Why are humans the only creatures to achieve what humans have achieved? ...I think the answer is the same for both questions. 



> This continues to be a matter of you assigning explanations that don't actually explain anything, throwing the word spiritual around as though it answers questions when there is no clear definition for how you are using the word in the first place.  At this point I consider your definition of spiritual to be, "anything for which there is no answer".



I keep hearing that I have not explained "spiritual" in this thread, and I wish you people would stop lying. Really. I mean, the first time or two, I figured you may have missed my explanation and so I repeated it. But this is getting tiresome and old real fast.  For the last time, I will explain this to you: Spiritual means non-physical. Spiritual nature means, the realm of our universe that is not of the physical realm, defined by physical nature. This could be another dimension we are incapable of recognizing from our physical realm. I do not profess to know the answer to that. I do know this spiritual realm exists, because I connect to it daily, as humans have been doing since we arose from the muck, apparently.  

The OP makes clear that we must first define what we mean by each word, before we engage in a debate of the question. I pointed all of this out there, and I have repeated it throughout the thread, and to come in here on page 47 and claim this hasn't been sufficiently established, is very intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion. Simple logic dictates, if spirituality existed solely because man needs a way to explain the unexplained, then *as man explained these things through science*, spirituality would have all but vanished, like superstition. Once was the time, people adhered to superstitious beliefs... religiously! As science explained natural phenomenon, these beliefs faded away or remained as a quaint novelty. But science, as amazing as it has been, simply has not replaced the need in humans to be spiritually connected. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have also been very spiritually inclined. Newton transcribed most of the Protestant bible in his later years, and penned many religious writings. Francis Collins, the man who mapped the human genome, is a Christian. Even some of Steven Hawkins observations include the consideration of a non-physical part of our universe that we aren't aware of in the physical.



As I already said, you are making the huge mistake of assuming science has explained all the things which the religious and supernatural explained in the past.  That is exceedingly strange considering your admitting that science can often explain the how but not the why.

So which is it?  Can science explain all of the why's, which would lead to no need for the spiritual explanations, or is science still in the dark about many issues, some of them long-standing, profound philosophic questions, leaving plenty of things for the religious, supernatural and spiritual to answer?


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.
> ...



That spirituality *exists* is not an opinion. Humans have practiced it for at least 70k years. 

Spiritual evidence is provable if you accept spiritual nature and existence, it is only unprovable physically. We've been over this, it's a logical dichotomy that can't be met. If you prove the spiritual with physical, you have rendered it physical in the process.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Your argument that we should see less belief in religion or the supernatural because of scientific advancement is wrong IMO.
> ...



We seem to be having two different arguments, the one I am presenting and the one you are reading. I'm not sure how to deal with that. My presenting either needs to improve, or your reading needs to. 

I have never assumed that science has explained everything. The 'argument' was posited; human spirituality emerged as a way to explain the unexplained. So did superstition. As we see over time, science explains things of physical nature, superstitions fade away. This has not happened with human spirituality, at all. Religion may modify itself through these scientific findings, it may even rise or fall in popularity, but human spirituality remains unchanged in our species. 

The question is not why do humans need a spiritual connection. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, they have a spiritual connection and always will. This is what drives us, and everything we do as humans. It's what makes us ask why, when other animals couldn't care less. The question is, what is this spiritual power humans are connected to?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your erroneous *ASSUMPTION* never reached the level of an "argument" because you never made that connection.


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We ask 'why' because we are capable of asking it.  Other animals don't because they cannot.  No spirituality is needed!  Intelligence explains why other animals couldn't care less.  That you believe our asking is evidence of the spiritual is one thing, but that other animals do not is evidence only of their inability to do so.  How would they ask the question, with a spiritual connection, but without the intelligence to do so?

We are having two different arguments because your argument is contradictory.  You have said that, without a spiritual connection, humanity should have stopped believing in the spiritual as science progressed and answered questions.  That assumes that science must have answered either all questions, or enough that people would feel no need to believe in the supernatural.  That gives science and humanity too much credit.  Science has many, many questions still to answer, and science does not even attempt to answer many more.  There are still many things which science cannot provide answers to but religion or supernatural beliefs can.  As I also already said, spiritual and supernatural beliefs can provide comfort or give guidelines for living that science cannot.  So your argument about scientific discovery causing an end to supernatural, spiritual beliefs, if those beliefs are mere imagination, is wrong.  Simple fear of death is probably enough to maintain spiritual beliefs even if they are nothing but imagination.

Speaking of which, it seems contradictory to me to use human supernatural beliefs through history as evidence of the spiritual, while at the same time dismissing the idea those beliefs could simply be imagination, when you've pretty much said that many of humanity's older beliefs WERE nothing but imagination.  If science has explained many phenomena that humans assigned imaginary supernatural beliefs to in the past, why is that evidence that there is SOME kind of supernatural force in the universe, but not evidence that humanity will imagine answers that don't exist?  

Put another way, if you accept that lightning and thunder are products of weather and not some kind of thunder god, and if you accept that the whole concept of a thunder god being what creates those things is nothing but a myth made up by people looking for any kind of explanation, why can't current supernatural beliefs be the same?  Why can't all supernatural beliefs in history be the same?  Why can't humans have been making things up for all of our history, rather than these imaginary beliefs being evidence of the spiritual?


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'That which is not physical' IS a vague and mostly useless definition.  It is a catch-all, it gives you a word to use for anything for which there is no observable evidence.

Most of this post is a bunch of 'why?' questions.  Nothing wrong with that, of course.  However, I think it is a perfect example of the point I have been making.  Humanity is still full of questions without definitive answers.  Just as in the past, people have created answers to those questions out of their imagination, so too can they still do so today.  There is no good evidence that the spiritual exists.  That man has believed in spiritual beings and forces is not good evidence, since many or most of those beliefs have turned out to be false.  

My why question is why you continue to tout false beliefs as strong evidence.  'Humans believed in something completely made up, but that belief is evidence there was something really there!'.  That argument seems pretty silly to me.

You seem to be doing what people have done throughout history; creating answers to questions of 'why' without evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue.  Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.
> 
> Sure, many things that were once thought of as divine or magical have been explained through science.  Humanity knows a lot more than it once did.  But there are still plenty of questions, there are still plenty of hopes, there are still plenty of fears, all of which can be answered by various religions.  If nothing else, simple fear of death remains a huge draw; most religions have some sort of afterlife, which I imagine can be a huge comfort in the face of death.
> 
> ...



We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I was speaking to Hollie , you must have forgotten who you were signed in as.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that when a person dies that is it it described in the bible like a state of sleep. I believe we are just a memory until the resurrection. I believe the spirit of a person is the breathe of life and I believe the soul is the blood. A living breathing organism is a living soul. If the blood of the organism is lost the soul is dead. If the breathe of an organism is lost that soul dies.
> ...



Some of my beliefs are faith based that is correct.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue.  Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.
> ...



A better clue than religion.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> We ask 'why' because we are capable of asking it.  Other animals don't because they cannot.  No spirituality is needed!  Intelligence explains why other animals couldn't care less.  That you believe our asking is evidence of the spiritual is one thing, but that other animals do not is evidence only of their inability to do so.  How would they ask the question, with a spiritual connection, but without the intelligence to do so?



you have a dismal understanding of nature ... a lighthearted view might help.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151523812709682


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I disagree. I think it is because of spirituality that we have this capacity while other animals don't. 



> Intelligence explains why other animals couldn't care less.



No it doesn't because other animals are more intelligent than us at certain things. 



> That you believe our asking is evidence of the spiritual is one thing, but that other animals do not is evidence only of their inability to do so.



That is circular reasoning. Other animals aren't spiritually connected. 



> How would they ask the question, with a spiritual connection, but without the intelligence to do so?



The spiritual connection would give them the ability, like in humans. 



> We are having two different arguments because your argument is contradictory.  You have said that, without a spiritual connection, humanity should have stopped believing in the spiritual as science progressed and answered questions.



Not what I said. I said we could expect to see a rapid decline in spirituality with the advent of science and scientific discovery, and we haven't. It's unchanged. This proves spirituality does not exist to explain the unexplained. 



> That assumes that science must have answered either all questions, or enough that people would feel no need to believe in the supernatural.



No, it assumes that if the reason man 'invented' spirituality was to explain the unexplained, when science began doing a better job than spirituality, some people would have abandoned it. Science was invented to explain the unexplained, not spirituality. 



> That gives science and humanity too much credit.



I wasn't the one who posited this theory. I am merely pointing out the flaw in it. If humans created spiritual belief in order to explain the unexplained, and there was really nothing spiritual to connect to or believe in, then science would have destroyed spirituality a long time ago, much like it did with superstition. It hasn't destroyed it, nor has it really changed it, people are just as spiritually connected as ever. 



> Science has many, many questions still to answer, and science does not even attempt to answer many more.  There are still many things which science cannot provide answers to but religion or supernatural beliefs can.



I haven't argued otherwise. 



> As I also already said, spiritual and supernatural beliefs can provide comfort or give guidelines for living that science cannot.



Correct, so there is a very real and fundamental purpose it serves to humans. I need to correct you on the continued use of the word "supernatural" when speaking of spirituality. I understand you believe it is supernatural, but this denotes something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. As you concluded here, it serves a vital purpose to man. To those who believe in spiritual nature, spirituality is not "supernatural" at all, it is completely natural, spiritual nature. 



> So your argument about scientific discovery causing an end to supernatural, spiritual beliefs, if those beliefs are mere imagination, is wrong.  Simple fear of death is probably enough to maintain spiritual beliefs even if they are nothing but imagination.



No, you misunderstood my argument, as I have pointed out above. I have asked you to explain to me why mankind has a fear of death, when no other animals seem concerned? Why do we ask why? Why do we need to know? I believe, it is because we are spiritually connected, different from all other living things. You've not refuted this argument.  



> Speaking of which, it seems contradictory to me to use human supernatural beliefs through history as evidence of the spiritual, while at the same time dismissing the idea those beliefs could simply be imagination, when you've pretty much said that many of humanity's older beliefs WERE nothing but imagination.  If science has explained many phenomena that humans assigned imaginary supernatural beliefs to in the past, why is that evidence that there is SOME kind of supernatural force in the universe, but not evidence that humanity will imagine answers that don't exist?



Humans imagine answers that don't exist all the time, in this very thread, there are humans imagining that spirituality doesn't exist, even though the evidence shows it has existed in some form as long as humans have been around. I admit, spirituality does drive our imaginations to create religious dogma, much of which is imagination. This is certainly not evidence spirituality doesn't exist. As I stated before, religion is evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, and have great imaginations. Because we are unable, as humans, to comprehend spiritual nature, our imagination tends to create an understanding based on things we can relate to. This gives us gods with human-like attributes, who have humanistic emotions and reactions. Again, these are all manifestations of a profound spiritual connection to something. It does not mean these manifestations are correct or accurate, but the fact they remain perpetual as a characteristic, is evidence that humans spiritually connect to something. 



> Put another way, if you accept that lightning and thunder are products of weather and not some kind of thunder god, and if you accept that the whole concept of a thunder god being what creates those things is nothing but a myth made up by people looking for any kind of explanation, why can't current supernatural beliefs be the same?  Why can't all supernatural beliefs in history be the same?  Why can't humans have been making things up for all of our history, rather than these imaginary beliefs being evidence of the spiritual?



Supernatural belief and spiritual belief are two different things. Spiritual belief involves a very real connection humans are making to some power greater than self, which is not evident in the physical realm, but is just as natural as physical nature. I understand the definitions can overlap, because "supernatural" is something not physically natural. However, this is where the distinction between those who accept spiritual nature and those who don't, comes into play, and why I made this the first point established in my argument. 

In order to definitively answer the question in the OP, we have to first set aside our preconceptions regarding supernatural, superstition, religion, and imagination. We have to remain focused on the inherent behavioral attributes that define humans as distinctly different creatures.  Yes, we are capable of astonishing things, but we are also spiritually connected and always have been. This is not delusion or product of imagination itself. 

Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet. I can tell you, there are FAR more people on this planet, who will testify about the moment they surrendered to their spiritual self, and how it was the greatest day of their life, than people who have chosen to close their minds and reject spiritual nature. It has always been this way, it always will be this way, because this is what makes us humans.


----------



## Montrovant (May 27, 2013)

Other animals being better at certain things does not equate to other animals being able to ask philosophic questions.  I have seen no evidence other animals are capable of asking the questions that lead to religious, spiritual or supernatural beliefs.

You think we have our intelligence because of spirituality?  Ok, but understand that is a belief with no objective evidence.

WHY would we see a rapid decline in spirituality with scientific discovery, when science cannot and often doesn't even attempt to answer some of the biggest questions that lead to spiritual, religious and supernatural beliefs?  Science has certainly pared the beliefs down, but there are too many things that lead to these kinds of beliefs that are outside the purview of scientific discovery.

Some people HAVE abandoned spirituality.  I don't know if there are more today than in the past, but it's certainly possible.  Perhaps you are correct that as we advance scientifically we will see more people abandon spiritual beliefs and you are simply incorrect about the time it will take.

Science has in no way destroyed superstition.  There are superstitions prevalent all over.  We may have less of them because of science, but they are far from gone.

According to your definition the spiritual is not part of the physical world, that means it is not subject to natural laws, and is therefor supernatural.

Mankind may be the only species that thinks on death while safe and healthy, but other animals certainly appear to fear death; at the least, they actively try to avoid it when it comes calling.  Prey animals don't simply accept that the predator is coming for them when they see one, do they?  No, they run.  That could be fear of death.  
Then again, other animal species may not have the intellectual capacity to understand life and death, so perhaps they do not fear it.  Again, though, it would be an example of how man's intelligence allows for the things you ascribe to a spiritual connection.

So again, you believe that human imagination fabricating various religious and supernatural beliefs is proof of a spiritual connection, but dismiss that possibility that human imagination could also be behind what you consider the spiritual.

You may not follow an organized religion, but your beliefs seem as ingrained and inflexible as any religious adherent.  You talk often of open mindedness, of setting aside preconceptions, etc.....yet all you have done is bring your own preconceptions to this discussion and moved on assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.  You have subjective evidence, where you have evidence at all.  You use the belief of the religious to make your point, then dismiss that belief as imagination.  You talk about how many people could testify to their spiritual connection at the same time you denigrate what they consider the very basis of that connection.

Your argument is just another version of 'my god is the one true god'.  I have no problem with your belief, I'm not arguing it's validity or lack thereof.  I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of some of your arguments and the fact that your claims of open mindedness seem disingenuous at best.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Other animals being better at certain things does not equate to other animals being able to ask philosophic questions.  I have seen no evidence other animals are capable of asking the questions that lead to religious, spiritual or supernatural beliefs.



I didn't argue that other animals make spiritual connection. They obviously don't. You claimed humans ask why because they can, and this is circular reasoning. It doesn't explain why humans can and other animals can't. You attempted to explain that we are more intelligent, but that isn't always true. An adult chimp is probably smarter than a newborn human. 



> You think we have our intelligence because of spirituality?  Ok, but understand that is a belief with no objective evidence.



Oh, but there is objective evidence. We have both our accomplishments which are superior to all other species, and our profound spiritual connection. It is objective to consider these two distinct attributes are related. Now either intelligence fostered spirituality or spirituality fostered intelligence, but they both define what humans are and why they are different. 

From a purely logical standpoint, it makes no sense that intelligence fostered spiritual belief as a placebo for knowledge. It is much more believable to me, that spirituality fostered intelligence, inquisitiveness, the ability to reason and philosophize. Mostly because, there is no example of any living thing, creating something that it depends on fundamentally, but is only imaginary. But also because these two distinct attributes are what make us dramatically different than all other living things, and it can't be a coincidence. 



> WHY would we see a rapid decline in spirituality with scientific discovery, when science cannot and often doesn't even attempt to answer some of the biggest questions that lead to spiritual, religious and supernatural beliefs?  Science has certainly pared the beliefs down, but there are too many things that lead to these kinds of beliefs that are outside the purview of scientific discovery.



Again, you are making my case better than I can myself here. Humans are intrinsically connected to something spiritually. We can't exist without it. Science can't answer all our questions. Science applies to physical nature and can't answer any spiritual questions.  



> Some people HAVE abandoned spirituality.  I don't know if there are more today than in the past, but it's certainly possible.  Perhaps you are correct that as we advance scientifically we will see more people abandon spiritual beliefs and you are simply incorrect about the time it will take.



There are far more people who have surrendered to their spiritual self, than people who have abandoned spirituality. It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual, and this has always been the case. You even admitted that humans need spirituality to explain what science can't explain. I'm not incorrect in the point I made, if spirituality were a placebo for knowledge which was missing, as that knowledge emerged, we'd see less spirituality. We haven't seen any decline whatsoever. Some religions may decline, that is common through history. Spirituality, in some form, remains relatively the same in the human species for all of our existence. It's part of who we are. 



> Science has in no way destroyed superstition.  There are superstitions prevalent all over.  We may have less of them because of science, but they are far from gone.



I didn't say science destroyed superstition entirely. In fact, there is a whole lot in religion that is nothing but superstition, in my opinion. However, people once held strong superstitious beliefs, which were not spiritually inclined or based, and those eventually turned into quaint novelties we recall today at halloween and whatnot. And sure, there are sports figures who wear the lucky jersey or whatever, I understand. I didn't mean to imply that science had eliminated all superstition. 



> According to your definition the spiritual is not part of the physical world, that means it is not subject to natural laws, and is therefor supernatural.



It's not subject to physical natural laws, because it is spiritual. I didn't define spiritual as "not a part" of the physical world, it is very much a part of it. I said it was non-physical in nature, which is entirely different. It's nature is spiritual, not physical. It does exist spiritually, it is present in the physical world, in a spiritual realm. 

According to your definition of supernatural, black holes are supernatural phenomenon. 



> Mankind may be the only species that thinks on death while safe and healthy, but other animals certainly appear to fear death;



Never claimed other animals don't want to survive. All living things will try to survive. You said humans need spirituality to relieve their fears of death. I have asked you to explain why other animals don't seem to need something to relieve their fear of death, which they don't seem to have? You counter that with survival instincts? Really? 



> Again, though, it would be an example of how man's intelligence allows for the things you ascribe to a spiritual connection.



Or it could be that spirituality, which drives human intelligence, leads man to worry about his eternal fate in the spiritual nature, after his physical presence is gone. 



> So again, you believe that human imagination fabricating various religious and supernatural beliefs is proof of a spiritual connection, but dismiss that possibility that human imagination could also be behind what you consider the spiritual.



We've already established, or actually, you established, that spirituality is needed by humans to explain things science will never have an answer for. So it's not purely imaginary, is it? Humans fundamentally need to worship some power greater than self, in order to be who we are. This can't be any clearer, when you study the history of human behavior. There are people lining up to reject this, but reality can't be rejected. 



> You may not follow an organized religion, but your beliefs seem as ingrained and inflexible as any religious adherent.  You talk often of open mindedness, of setting aside preconceptions, etc.....yet all you have done is bring your own preconceptions to this discussion and moved on assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.  You have subjective evidence, where you have evidence at all.  You use the belief of the religious to make your point, then dismiss that belief as imagination.  You talk about how many people could testify to their spiritual connection at the same time you denigrate what they consider the very basis of that connection.
> 
> Your argument is just another version of 'my god is the one true god'.  I have no problem with your belief, I'm not arguing it's validity or lack thereof.  I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of some of your arguments and the fact that your claims of open mindedness seem disingenuous at best.



Why do you keep trying to make this a religious debate? Religions are often full of crap when it comes to understanding a spiritual god. In my argument, they only serve as evidence that humans do make some kind of spiritual connection to something, and they have vivid imaginations. 

My argument doesn't have a thing to do with my personal god. I've made this abundantly clear, and I've corrected posters on the use of the various words, like "deity" to describe god. This is not a religious debate, it has nothing to do with religious incarnations of various gods that man has conjured up. 

It is about the human spiritual connection that does exist in man, and always has. This intrinsic need that can't be filled by science, to have something to rely on for our most profound questions. You realized this yourself, it is needed by man. It can't be bred out, beaten out, burned out, or enlightened out. Human spirituality remains our most defining attribute, and by which, all other uniquely human attributes came.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 28, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No they don't their thoughts are dead on arrival.


----------



## numan (May 28, 2013)

Boss said:


> ...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.
> 
> Can I prove that? Sure, but it will have to start with you surrendering to your spiritual self, and you aren't willing to do that yet.


How do you tell the difference between "surrendering to your spiritual self" and surrendering to a delusion?



Boss said:


> It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....


It's the natural state of humans to be irrational and deluded.
.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.
> ...



Enlightenment through a moment of clarity. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It's the natural state of humans to be spiritual....
> ...



Only certain humans, such as yourself.


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.
> ...


How does anyone "surrender to their spiritual self"?

What does that even mean?   It sounds like something you would hear coming from a 1960's vintage hippie.

Maybe it's one of those new-wave religions coming out of the California pot head community.

"It's like... like, spiritual man, ya know". 

Totally rad!


----------



## BreezeWood (May 28, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is not delusion or product of imagination itself.
> ...





isn't the diversity of life - no blade of grass being the same, for all eternity, physical proof of the spiritual nature of each individual ? 

spirituality and individuality being the same.


----------



## Montrovant (May 28, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Other animals being better at certain things does not equate to other animals being able to ask philosophic questions.  I have seen no evidence other animals are capable of asking the questions that lead to religious, spiritual or supernatural beliefs.
> ...



I'm not making this a religious argument.  I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to say sometimes.  That mankind has worshiped various beings throughout history is not in question.  If that is your definition of a spiritual nature, simply that people worship something beyond themselves, then yes, humanity has a spiritual nature.  If, on the other hand, you use that worship as evidence that spiritual beings or forces exist (although they cannot be seen because they are not part of the physical universe) then I disagree.

I have not said that man cannot exist without worship or spiritual connection.  I have said that science does not answer all the questions which lead to those kinds of beliefs.  Some people do not feel a need to assign answers to those questions without evidence.  Most, it seems, do.  That some do not is already evidence such belief is not necessary.

I completely disagree that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.  Human intelligence is IMO.  There are various ways that intelligence manifests, including the belief in the supernatural or spiritual, which make us different from other species.  This, however, is a debate with nowhere to go.

I still don't understand your inability to grasp what I'm saying about animal intelligence.  Why don't animals need spirituality to assuage their fear of death?  Assuming they feel a fear of death the way humanity does, they do not have the intelligence to create the supernatural comforts that we do.  Again, they are not capable of thinking the things humanity does.  Why ask a question like that?

Are you saying black holes are not part of the physical universe?  I don't understand what you think my definition of supernatural is.  I actually was using a dictionary definition : 'of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal'.  Not sure how black holes fit into that.

One last time : believe what you will, just understand that your beliefs are subjective.  You have not provided objective evidence of your conclusions.


----------



## Montrovant (May 28, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And yet another definition for spirituality!

Also, no blade of grass the same for eternity?  What?


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


yes it does but not in the way you wish it did, spiritually like any belief system is just that, a belief. 
I accept that you believe it to be something that can not be measured, but that makes it subjective ....so any conclusions or theories drawn from it are also subjective.


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to make it sound as though science has answered all of humanity's questions, Boss, which is clearly untrue.  Science also does not provide comfort, nor give a guideline for living life as religions do.
> ...


false!


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false !


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


all of you beliefs are faith based..as you have no evidence to support them..


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


an assumptive false declaration.
presupposing that faith is better then fact.


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


ah.... hollie totally rad is 80's
groovy or  I can dig it would be 60's

just sayin'


----------



## daws101 (May 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


that's what I said! blades of grass are for all practical purposes the same...
it's nice poetry but it's bullshit.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I'm not making this a religious argument.  I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.



I'm not at all intransigent or unmoving, I simply reject your shallow explanations for human spirituality. You know, before I posted this thread, I had already heard everything raised in this thread by you and others, dozens and dozens of times, in every debate on this topic. You could not have expected it to work this time any better than it has worked previously, especially since I made such an effort to keep this from turning into a religious debate.  



> I cannot figure out what you are trying to say sometimes.  That mankind has worshiped various beings throughout history is not in question.  If that is your definition of a spiritual nature, simply that people worship something beyond themselves, then yes, humanity has a spiritual nature.  If, on the other hand, you use that worship as evidence that spiritual beings or forces exist (although they cannot be seen because they are not part of the physical universe) then I disagree.



Oh I know you can't figure out what I am trying to say sometimes, because you keep trying to misinterpret me and claim I've said things I never said. You seem to be on the verge of getting it, that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self, is a big part. The other part, you alluded to earlier, humans have a need which spirituality fills. This is not imaginary, and it's not mass delusion. It's certainly not coincidental that man is spiritually connected and has achieved all man has done. 



> I have not said that man cannot exist without worship or spiritual connection.  I have said that science does not answer all the questions which lead to those kinds of beliefs.  Some people do not feel a need to assign answers to those questions without evidence.  Most, it seems, do.  That some do not is already evidence such belief is not necessary.



But man has never existed without spirituality for very long. In every instance, man becomes complacent and immoral, and destroys civilized society. Also, these people arguing in this thread against me, are not examples of people who don't believe in a spiritual higher power. I know that is what they will say, and even swear this is so, but it's not. You don't spend this amount of time arguing against something you don't believe exists or is real. Most of them are simply angry at a god they believe exists, for judging them, for messing up their lives, for some injustice they believe god is responsible for. Their viewpoint is that of denunciation, they seek to punish the god they believe exists, by denouncing him and convincing others to do the same. Atheists are often some of the biggest believers in god.  Statistically speaking, about 5% of the human race is Nihilist. 

Man can not exist without spirituality. 



> I completely disagree that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.  Human intelligence is IMO.  There are various ways that intelligence manifests, including the belief in the supernatural or spiritual, which make us different from other species.  This, however, is a debate with nowhere to go.



Sorry, but other animals have intelligence. You're right, the debate ends there. The most defining attribute of humans is spirituality. It doesn't matter if you disagree. 



> I still don't understand your inability to grasp what I'm saying about animal intelligence.  Why don't animals need spirituality to assuage their fear of death?  Assuming they feel a fear of death the way humanity does, they do not have the intelligence to create the supernatural comforts that we do.  Again, they are not capable of thinking the things humanity does.  Why ask a question like that?



Huh? Animals aren't able to imagine something that isn't real to keep them comforted? 

Look, if you just want to pretend to be silly here, we can do that. I don't care. We both know that humans have a fear of death and other animals don't think about it. They do not contemplate what happens after they die. Humans do this, and humans alone. Now grow the fuck up and stop trying to play cute little games here, being an obtuse twit. 

Again, humans are spiritually connected, where other animals are not. This manifests in the human contemplation and concern for their spiritual self, or spirit. This sparks the question of what happens after we die, and why mankind has always asked this question. Other animals don't do this, because they are not spiritually connected. So what you are erroneously doing, is taking the byproduct of spiritual belief, the contemplation of death, and you are claiming this is why man invented spirituality.  It is refutable because no other animal contemplates death or needs something to explain it. There is no logical reason humans, the most intelligent of all species, would have to create some placebo to deal with a 'fear of death' that doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. Does that really make sense to you?  



> Are you saying black holes are not part of the physical universe?  I don't understand what you think my definition of supernatural is.  I actually was using a dictionary definition : 'of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal'.  Not sure how black holes fit into that.



I have no problem with that definition, but spirituality doesn't fit the criteria of it. Spirituality is natural, it is found in the human species for all of the human species existence. Spiritual nature is present but not physically verifiable. It is not an abnormal phenomenon, it is present in about 95% of all humans, and this is consistent through all of human existence. You and others, don't believe in it, and demand physical proof of it, which is illogical. 

Black holes are not explainable with natural laws of physics. Something is happening there, that our physics doesn't support. The energy is so strong that light cannot escape, and that defies our laws of nature. Is this supernatural? No, because we can observe it. Can't explain it yet, not really sure what is happening, but even though it defies our natural laws, it is there and can't be denied. You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual. 



> One last time : believe what you will, just understand that your beliefs are subjective.  You have not provided objective evidence of your conclusions.



Everyone's beliefs are subjective, aren't they? 

I think I have provided a lot of objective evidence, and I've shot down everything you've countered with. You can pretend otherwise, if that makes you feel better. Or you can claim this is a philosophical debate that no one can win. To me, it doesn't matter, I am satisfied with my OP argument, and it remains uncontested.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Can't wait for this explanation,let's hear it as the pin drops to the floor.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Explain.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




*no, it is not ....*


poetry is an acceptable explanation - as a form of spirituality.

not just blades of Grass but all physiology from the past 750 million years to the present of similar species to all species included have not a single replication nor will any life form on Earth for all eternity similar or not.

nor for their intelligence

for all creatures Fauna and Flora - supposedly including "mankind".


----------



## Montrovant (May 28, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not making this a religious argument.  I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.
> ...



Holy crap, the arrogant presumption!

You make pains to say you do not believe in organized religion, yet seem to make a lot of the same arguments and assumptions.

That someone would not argue against something they do not believe in is one of the most ridiculous fallacies in religious argument.  Of course someone who doesn't believe in a particular god will be the one to argue against it.  Someone who does believe isn't going to argue that god doesn't exist!  The same with the spiritual forces you posit.  Those who argue against the existence of such things will of course be the ones who do not believe in them.  That someone enjoys arguing, or feels compelled to do so, is not indicative of some secretly held belief.  Some of us just like to argue.

I may be on the verge of getting whatever the hell you are trying to say, but I doubt I am on the verge of 'getting it' in the sense I agree with you in the slightest.  You have left things so vaguely defined, used so much circular logic, and put forth arguments that boil down to 'because I say so' so often it's difficult to be sure of what you are trying to say.  Humans have long believed in 'higher powers'.  That's never been a point of contention.

There is a minority that does not hold supernatural beliefs.  That has been true for a long time.  That is evidence that your spiritual connection is not necessary for human life.

Yes, other animals have intelligence.  If you are possibly trying to claim it is on the same level as human intelligence, you are ignoring all evidence.  Whether YOU agree or not is immaterial.  Humanity's greater intelligence is a nearly universal truth based on the experience of our entire history.  Our intelligence is what has led us to be the dominant species on the planet.  It is what allows us to use language, to create technology, to be the creatures we are.  

Your inability to understand this argument is confounding.  Can other species of animals use imagination to create beliefs which provide comfort?  I'm not asking you if they DO, I'm asking you if they have the intellectual capacity.  Perhaps a few of the most intelligent can; in the main, they do not seem to have the ability.  So, to argue that humans shouldn't create false beliefs to gain comfort because other animals don't is ridiculous.  It would be like saying humans must not wage wars because other species don't.
You can claim that our spiritual connection is what led to our gaining greater intelligence, but don't imply that other species have the same capacity to reason, or to imagine, that humans do.  It's asinine.

I am fairly certain that black holes are explainable through physics and need no supernatural explanation.

Do you see the blatant contradiction in this?  "You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual."
So are you saying the spiritual may one day be provable through physical evidence?  If it is no longer spiritual once that happens, then it won't actually have been proven, will it?  Actually, that entire argument makes very little sense.

I think you've provided very little objective evidence, and in fact are fairly confused as to what that term means.  I think your points have been contested many times, you simply reject the arguments.  I think it is extremely ironic and amusing that you rail against the closed mindedness of others while you continue to be so firmly entrenched in your own views.

Even if you are correct in everything you believe, you come off as very hypocritical presenting it.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Holy crap, the arrogant presumption!
> 
> You make pains to say you do not believe in organized religion, yet seem to make a lot of the same arguments and assumptions.



What assumptions have I made? You didn't stipulate anything. You lodged a protest, but failed to say what you were protesting. I have made NO religious argument here, and I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. It sounds like you simply want to lash out at me because you can't come up with anything to throw at me that I don't knock out of the park. 



> That someone would not argue against something they do not believe in is one of the most ridiculous fallacies in religious argument.



What is the point of arguing about something that doesn't exist? 



> Of course someone who doesn't believe in a particular god will be the one to argue against it.  Someone who does believe isn't going to argue that god doesn't exist!  The same with the spiritual forces you posit.  Those who argue against the existence of such things will of course be the ones who do not believe in them.  That someone enjoys arguing, or feels compelled to do so, is not indicative of some secretly held belief.  Some of us just like to argue.



And some people will lie, even to themselves, and claim they don't believe in god, when they really do. 



> I may be on the verge of getting whatever the hell you are trying to say, but I doubt I am on the verge of 'getting it' in the sense I agree with you in the slightest.  You have left things so vaguely defined, used so much circular logic, and put forth arguments that boil down to 'because I say so' so often it's difficult to be sure of what you are trying to say.  Humans have long believed in 'higher powers'.  That's never been a point of contention.



I'm sorry, but please show me where I've said "because I say so" in any argument I have made in this thread? How about stop being dishonest? YOU are the one presenting circular logic, when you contend that 'man asks why because man can ask why.'  Nothing has been vaguely defined, we've been over every definition of each word in the OP, so that there is clear understanding of what we are debating. The thread is nearly 2k posts long, and I have repeatedly clarified and explained every definition at least twice. 

Humans have ALWAYS believed in higher powers, it's our most defining attribute. 



> There is a minority that does not hold supernatural beliefs.  That has been true for a long time.  That is evidence that your spiritual connection is not necessary for human life.



I never said that humans die if they don't practice spirituality. Sorry if you thought you had scored a point with that, but I think it's safe to say that humans can indeed reject their spiritual nature and still live. Humanity cannot survive without spirituality, that's what I said.



> Yes, other animals have intelligence.  If you are possibly trying to claim it is on the same level as human intelligence, you are ignoring all evidence.  Whether YOU agree or not is immaterial.  Humanity's greater intelligence is a nearly universal truth based on the experience of our entire history.  Our intelligence is what has led us to be the dominant species on the planet.  It is what allows us to use language, to create technology, to be the creatures we are.



Doesn't matter about evidence, all animals have intelligence to some degree. We can train chimps to fly rockets into space. What other animals don't have, is spirituality. This is our most defining attribute. This isn't a debate, you don't win this, it's just a fact that you should learn, and stop trying to refute like a dumbass. Our "greater" intelligence is a manifestation of our spirituality, which is unique to our species. Our inspiration comes from spirituality, along with all the other attributes which makes us different. 



> Your inability to understand this argument is confounding.  Can other species of animals use imagination to create beliefs which provide comfort?  I'm not asking you if they DO, I'm asking you if they have the intellectual capacity.  Perhaps a few of the most intelligent can; in the main, they do not seem to have the ability.  So, to argue that humans shouldn't create false beliefs to gain comfort because other animals don't is ridiculous.  It would be like saying humans must not wage wars because other species don't.
> You can claim that our spiritual connection is what led to our gaining greater intelligence, but don't imply that other species have the same capacity to reason, or to imagine, that humans do.  It's asinine.



The fact remains, other animals don't worry about what happens after they die. You claim humans invented spirituality to cope with this question, but other less intelligent creatures, don't seem to be plagued with this concern, and certainly not to the point of having to create some kind of security blanket so they can deal with it. The fact that we don't see any other living thing, contemplating what happens after it dies, tells me this might be related to the other unique attribute we have, spirituality. Spirituality clearly came first, and this is what prompts man to contemplate what happens after death. 



> I am fairly certain that black holes are explainable through physics and need no supernatural explanation.



Nope... not explainable through physics, or not as of now. There are some theories, but nothing is conclusive, it seems to be a mystery we've yet to unravel. It's not supernatural, I never claimed that. The point was, there are things that physics doesn't explain. Science is not infallible, and has often had to recant. 



> Do you see the blatant contradiction in this?  "You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual."
> So are you saying the spiritual may one day be provable through physical evidence?  If it is no longer spiritual once that happens, then it won't actually have been proven, will it?  Actually, that entire argument makes very little sense.



I am saying that I won't say it's impossible. As I said before, I know that a spiritual nature does exist, which puts me at a distinct advantage in this debate. Now, it's possible, what I interpret as a spiritual nature, might be another alternate nature residing in a parallel dimension. Perhaps in the future, science will discover some way to confirm this thing, I have no way of knowing what we don't yet know. As of now, physical science cannot verify spiritual existence. 



> I think you've provided very little objective evidence, and in fact are fairly confused as to what that term means.  I think your points have been contested many times, you simply reject the arguments.  I think it is extremely ironic and amusing that you rail against the closed mindedness of others while you continue to be so firmly entrenched in your own views.
> 
> Even if you are correct in everything you believe, you come off as very hypocritical presenting it.



We see again, you make an allegation and don't back it up with anything. You've repeated this throughout your posts, and I honestly don't know how I am supposed to address the problems if you don't specify what they are. I began the OP with the point that we have to establish meanings to the words and have understanding of spiritual nature before we can objectively answer the question. My points have simply not been refuted. Every counter argument presented, has been shown to be flawed. Whenever I have shot down your argument, you have tried to prop it back up by insisting you disagree with me, even when you can't make a logical case for why. Then you want to claim I am being hypocritical and closed-minded. What I see, is someone who is immature, and has lost an argument, but rather than admit some good points were made, is going to act like a jackass instead. 

I don't have time for jackassery.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> "No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi


Same goes for evolution, pal.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > "No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi
> ...



It isn't belief that makes evolution true, it is demonstrable evidence, pal.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


It's only your faith that makes it evidence to you.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Fossils are real.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Fossils may be real but what you extrapolate from them is faith.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Evolution has evidence. Hence, one who believes in evolution is not using faith.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



No, its facts and evidence, objective and documented, upon which evolution is based.  

First came facts and evidence, then came evolution. 

Religion is devoid of both facts and evidence, predicated on faith alone.    

The last thing theists want is proof of god, as such proof would make faith irrelevant, and religion pointless.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


There you go again, trying to turn this into a theological discussion.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Again, you still don't understand what I was saying.  Instead of condescending, try thinking about it.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in  your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



In order for anything to be determined "evidence" requires faith. You must have faith in the validity as evidence, do you not? 

I see some evidence of changes within genera, but I also see species who haven't changed at all. I see no evidence of cross-genus speciation, which is required, if evolution explains origin. The FACT is, evolution doesn't deal with origin, it's about the process of evolving once life had already originated. Origin is theorized in Abiogenesis, and there are about two dozen working variations on that. No valid "evidence" exists to support any of it.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


No, that's not what I'm doing, and you're not thinking.  Try again.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in  your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.



Fossils are evidence that something once existed. It is not evidence that it was something else at an earlier time or something else at a later time. You are trying to turn it into evidence of that, when it's not. You find similarity to other things, and assume that it must be a creature in transition. You haven't proven this, and you can't prove it. We can't even make it happen in a lab with all the technology known to man, but you firmly have *faith* that it must've happened.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Faith, being defined as belief without evidence, has no place in a discussion about evidence itself.  It would have to do with logic. This is simply an attempt by theists to introduce undue skepticism with respect to evidential standards for evolution, which is special pleading to heighten the standard to disallow any evidence at all, when evidence for their god claim is simply a book written two thousand years ago, or the fact that humans have believed in the supernatural for 70,000 years. If you are keeping your evidential standards consistent, this type of glaring inconsistency could not be possible. This is another example of intellectual dishonesty by you and SJ.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



What you are doing is illogical. Enough said. Not to mention this is a red herring from the discussion at hand, and a dishonest tactic to steer away from what I was trying to get at. This thread is not about evolution.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Damn, you are thick.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Damn, you are an immature little prick who can't debate.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


LOL.  For somebody who brags so much at being an intellectual, you sure are dumb.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



When do I ever brag about being an intellectual? Stop lying.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Boss understood what I was saying, but Mr. Intellectual Scientist didn't have a fucking clue.  This is priceless.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Cool. I'm not going to be roped in by your immaturity. If you want to debate, lets do it. If you want to be a little child who takes pot shots, then shut the fuck up and spare me your ridiculous antics.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


  DUH!


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You can't be this stupid. It's just not feasible.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Nice try.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



All you are interested in is a flame war. When you happen to grow up, maybe we can try this again. Until then, I'm through with you. You are too much of a prick, without any good points to make.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


I'd love to debate you but not if I have to draw you a fucking picture every time I say something.  I'm used to debating people with minds that operate at a normal speed.  Yours' is just to damn slow.  Get back to me when you figure out what I was saying, dumbass.  It wasn't that difficult (not for most people, anyway).


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You've lost my respect. I don't give a fuck about you. Say what you will. You made a nonsensical claim which I deconstructed, and you can't handle it. You insist that it made sense, when it didn't. We are at impasse. This is not an excuse for you to start name-calling, yet this is how you behave. Again, when you grow up and can treat people in a civil manner, then we can debate. Until then, fuck you, and fuck off.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


I made a simple statement and you totally didn't get it.  You still don't get it.  Funny you should lecture me about treating people in a civil manner, then say "fuck you, and fuck off".  Please don't confirm your stupidity by saying you don't see the irony in your post.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I don't care enough about you to treat you in a civil manner. We are way past that, and you know it.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Well, that's a given, but aren't you going to comment on your remark?


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You don't seem to take a hint.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


In other words, you're too embarrassed by your comments to continue.  I understand.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



So, you want me to treat you with respect, when you give none? That's interesting. The real irony is that you're a christian, yet are the biggest asshole on this message board. Explain that one.


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


When all else fails, attack Christianity.  No surprise there.


----------



## newpolitics (May 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Awwww.... you poor christian. Cry me a fucking river, dickhead.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Explain how evolution can be demonstrable ? it has never been observed and please don't post another wiki page on speciation that is merely adaptive change within a family that is extrapolated from to try and show cross genus evolution but the actual term would be macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



They are not evidence of your assumption so it would be faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



They are unproven assumptions which are reduced to faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Fossils are the remains of dead organisms many which are extinct by the way why are most of these transitional organisms that are supposedly better adapted extinct ?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Evolution clearly _has_ been observed. The data has been presented to you dozens of times.

Your decision to remain ignorant as a way to shield your fundie beliefs from the illuminating light of science is no reason for others to embrace fear and superstition.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Read my post a little slower.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Go pander your religion somewhere else.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



A 6,000 year old earth would not yield the enormous fossil evidence that exists. 

We must therefore conclude that the fosill evidence is a conspiracy of global proportions with conspirators who have infiltrated every field of academia.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



See? That's the way you confront religious zealots. Hit'em with the facts and the crooked timber holding up their rotting floors crumbles before them.

They're left only to whine like petulant children.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



This is a lie, A 4.5 billion year old planet should have yielded many more fossils then it has where are all the fossils ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That is what I am doing thanks for the tip.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Why do living fossils that have been around for so many years as evolutionists claim show no evolutionary change ?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


They're being assembled in secret , underground labs. Scientists need time to sneak out under cover of darkness and bury them in the ground.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You see what happens when you make a silly comment.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Those gawds. They're such kidders.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah. Bibles start thumping.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Those atheists are so filled with faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sorry I have not mentioned God yet in this exchange.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There's no requirement for faith to understand biology, paleontology, physics, the earth sciences, etc.

There is however, a willingness needed to instead embrace fear, superstition and lurid conspiracy theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Oh but you're so wrong.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet?

And what exchange? You've offered only silliness and pointlessness.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Pointless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



My daddy can beat your daddy up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're correct your comment was pointless that we can agree on.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Pointless. It defines your posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Are you attempting to clarify ?

Now let's get back to my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

I can see the copying and pasting coming lol !


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I can see the copying and pasting coming lol !



I'm fascinated by your insistence that the fosill evidence must be a conspiracy because, according to you, there should be more fosills. 

How many more should there be?

By what standard fo you determine there should be more?


----------



## numan (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I am reminded of the 19th century geologist Edmond Gosse who found the geological evidence overwhelming but also believed in the inerrancy of the Bible.

His solution was that the world was created 6000 years ago, but with the rocks filled with fossils that gave convincing proof of a past which never existed. He thought that God had created the fossil evidence in the rocks to test the faith of his fellow geologists.

He was also much exercised over the question whether Adam and Eve had navels. To be created perfect, full humans they should have had navels. But since God created them by an act of HIs Will, they had never been born, so a navel would be superfluous and unnecessary.

If you think that is weird, wait till you learn about the question of how many wills Christ had....
.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the copying and pasting coming lol !
> ...



Not a conspiracy,fossils should be very easy to come by with life supposedly existing on the planet for 3.9  billion years as your side claims. There should be plenty more fossils. I am facinated by your thought that with only 6,000 there is no way we could have as many fossils as we do. Try to imagine how many organisims have existed for 3.9 billion years why are fossils so hard to find ?


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

Why do fossils mean anything in the question of whether god exists? How did we get diverted? Oh, I see... it was newpolitics who introduced fossils. Hollie has now taken interest in fossils, after scratching her itch to bash and trash christians again. What is amazing to me is, how this same small group of posters can go for pages, diverting and distracting, spewing hate for religion, mocking the religious, and propping up their myths that evolution explains origin, and this is viewed as a refutation of the OP argument.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You can't seem to fix a number on how many more fossils there should be. "Plenty more." is open-ended and obviously intended to provide an allowance for your conspiracy theories. No matter how complete the fosill record, "there should be more" is always available.

Possibly, if you had a clue as to the process of fosillization, you might be able to address the topic with a bit more than silly conspiratorial musings.

Why do you think the gawds would try to decieve us this way? If the planet is only 6,000 years old, there should be no fosills at all. Are your gawds perpetrating a hoax?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No the flood created the rock strata that fossils were found in.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You started the conspiracy


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


A debunked claim. 

It's a relic of absurdity that exists only in Christian creationist ministries.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You seem to have forgotten that it is you who rejects the "rock hard" evidence. 

We can all have a chuckle if you cut and paste the Harun Yahya article that "debunks" the fosill record. That one's a hoot.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Only in your dream. Boss I will now leave it to you to continue schooling them on your point.


----------



## numan (May 29, 2013)

'

It is interesting that fanatics like Iwasbornyesterday are so stubbornly convinced about matters they know so little about -- and the less they know, the more obstinate they are in their delusions.
.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So how do you account for the fosill record that does exist? 

Do your conspiracy theories really make sense?


----------



## S.J. (May 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


See what I mean?  Thank you for confirming.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> It is interesting that fanatics like Iwasbornyesterday are so stubbornly convinced about matters they know so little about -- and the less they know, the more obstinate they are in their delusions.
> .



The same could be said for you. 

All YWC did, was illustrate there is a difference of opinion regarding fossils. What we see is the typical reaction when opinions differ from yours, denigration and ridicule. As long as there are two or three of you to keep the distraction balloon in the air, and avoid the OP argument, you believe you are winning the argument. Unfortunately, denigration, ridicule and distraction, doesn't win arguments.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> It is interesting that fanatics like Iwasbornyesterday are so stubbornly convinced about matters they know so little about -- and the less they know, the more obstinate they are in their delusions.
> .



About rock strata formation are you suggesting water is not needed ? let's get back on topic but I would like you to admit your ignorance before I go.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




the trail of evolution contradicts "Biblical" accounts of Genesis - there would be exact replicas of Adam and Eve from the very beginning, 3.9 billion .... good luck Christians, no matter how many other organism existed or if only 6000 years old by any standard.

of course that only reputes the Bible and not Creation.





> *Boss*: What other animals don't have, is spirituality. This is our most defining attribute.



how sad for the Boss ... happy oblivion.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not sure what you're saying but I think you misunderstand my point.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


self explanatory.."We know science has no clue about many things most importantly how life came in to existence" ywc


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


already have,did my answer have one too many multi syllabic words?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Let's get back on topic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If we go back through the thread this claim is false.


----------



## numan (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that fanatics like Iwasbornyesterday are so stubbornly convinced about matters they know so little about -- and the less they know, the more obstinate they are in their delusions.
> ...


What has that got to do with evolution, you silly person!

Anyway, your utter ignorance is proven, yet again. Of course, strata can be formed without water! Volcanic deposits, wind-blown sand and soil are obvious examples, if you were capable of being rational for a few consecutive moments!

Plenty of fossils have been found in sandstone!

Sheesh! What an ignoramus you are!!
.


----------



## Montrovant (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



How ironic, considering you have dismissed religion as nothing but imagination.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


this coming from god's worst pimp.
I say that because YWC creates god in his own image to suit his false premise pseudoscience dogma.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > *Boss*: What other animals don't have, is spirituality. This is our most defining attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> how sad for the Boss ... happy oblivion.



I am puzzled by this, what do you mean?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



You should really work on your reading comprehension, you're almost as bad as newpolitics. I have never stated that religion is "nothing but imagination." It is the manifestation of spirituality, which is not imaginary. Humans do have imagination, and have used their imagination to construct many religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that religion is "nothing but imagination."


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


assumption based on  unprovable young earth speculation.
how convenient you leave out the simple fact that   EVERYTHING DECAYS.
unless highly specialized conditions are present IE a lack of oxygen, bacteria, heat or a million other thing that have to happen  or not happen to form fossils.
also slap dick, did you actually think no one notices your manipulation of facts?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh my. Yet another creationist conspiracy theory debunked 

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils


CC365: Coconino footprints


The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


thanks, for proving my point.
if you're gonna make shit up, the least you could do is be original.


----------



## Montrovant (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Holy crap, the arrogant presumption!
> ...



You claim that people in this thread who say they don't believe in god actually do, then wonder what assumption you might be making.

You clearly don't understand the phrase 'it boils down to'.  I was not directly quoting you saying 'because I say so', I was summarizing the basics of many of your arguments.  When you argue that the spiritual exists, but those who do not believe in it cannot see it, that argument boils down to 'because I say so'.  If it makes you feel better, rephrase it.  Perhaps as 'trust me'?

You may think your definitions are clear, but when you define something as a thing which cannot be empirically observed, which does not exist in physical reality, it leaves you open to say nearly anything about that thing.  It is your spirituality, it is god, it is a savage pink unicorn, anything you say about the spiritual realm is valid by that definition.

Evidence doesn't matter?  
Yes, nearly all animals have some level of intelligence.  Do you not understand variations in degree?  Do you not believe that human intelligence is both greater than other animal species, and gives us the capacity to think of things most, or all, other animal species cannot?

I'm not arguing that other animals worry about what happens when they die.  I'm arguing that most, if not all other animals are incapable of doing so.  I have claimed that fear of death is one of the major things supernatural belief provides an answer to or at least comfort from.
I don't understand why you keep coming back to this.  Why is the lack of human fear in animals evidence of spirituality?  If other animals are INCAPABLE of the same kind of contemplation of death that humanity is, if they lack the intellectual capacity to fear death as we do or desire comfort as we do, how is that evidence of spirituality?  You may as well say that because a tree does not worship a higher power, it is evidence of man's spiritual connection.
Again, you may be correct about the spiritual, but your arguments in favor of it are very strange!

What about black holes is unexplainable?  I'm sure there's plenty we don't know, but as I understand it the current theories and evidence about black holes fits within the laws of physics.  I'm no expert, and I'm honestly interested in how I'm wrong if you want to explain.
I certainly agree that science doesn't know everything and has had to change or completely recant things, and likely will many times in the future.

You haven't won this argument, nor have I, as it really cannot be won.  It is entirely opinion based.  You have provided what evidence you can for your beliefs, but nothing definitive.  It cannot be, as by your own definition there is no tangible evidence possible for the spiritual.  
Similar arguments could be made for the existence of other supernatural things, be it ghosts, or telepathy, or the gods of religions.  As long as something is not observable or testable in the physical realm in which we reside, it will remain a subjective belief.  Even most of those who have the spiritual connection you believe in most likely think you are wrong in many specifics, since you don't follow their particular religious beliefs.

So, I understand the belief that humanity's supernatural worship and superstition through our history must be based on something real.  I simply disagree.  I think it is quite possible that humans have created these beliefs without any real spiritual, magical, or supernatural forces existing.  You give more weight to human belief than I do.  That is unlikely to change for either of us, at least in the course of a message board discussion.


----------



## Montrovant (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm sorry, it is the imaginary beliefs created by humans to try and explain the spiritual forces they cannot understand.  Would that be a more accurate description?

In either case you are calling people's religious beliefs imaginary.  Feel free to spin it some more if you like.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


again a false assumption and attempting to manipulate fact.
1 true, many fossils are found in sandstone .
2 but sand stone takes millions of years to form that fact alone refutes the young earth myth.
meaning YWC has no argument..


----------



## Montrovant (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> Why do fossils mean anything in the question of whether god exists? How did we get diverted? Oh, I see... it was newpolitics who introduced fossils. Hollie has now taken interest in fossils, after scratching her itch to bash and trash christians again. What is amazing to me is, how this same small group of posters can go for pages, diverting and distracting, spewing hate for religion, mocking the religious, and propping up their myths that evolution explains origin, and this is viewed as a refutation of the OP argument.



Be fair about this.  S.J. introduced evolution into the discussion in response to a quote from newpolitics about belief not equaling truth (or something to that effect).  Once evolution comes up in a religious argument, it is pretty inevitable where it will lead, at least with some of the posters likely to be involved.  There is a ridiculously long creationism thread going over and over the same things already, and I don't think that's slowed down.

Yes, some people like to bash christians or the religious in general.  Some of the religious like to bash atheists and agnostics, too.  And the religious are just as capable of diverting a thread as the non-religious.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


 Do you suffer from a.d.d ? These fossils have not been refuted opinions have been offered that is it. Do I need to point out hoaxes form your side now. Look you and your buddy was getting your butt handed to you so you try to change the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



prove it


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


So... you may need to float another conspiracy theory as a means to prevent another of your specious claims crashing Into the ground in flames.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



The earth's crust is made up of sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock was distributed by rapid erosion and deposition by water let's not forget transportation. There is no evidence of global uniformity of strata over large spans of time.

You are reading opinions and taking it as a fact as usual.

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The earth's crust was formed in just a few thousand years?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well if you insist.

25 Greatest Scientific Hoaxes In History


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As bogus as I expected. The first item was about crop circles.

Were you under the impression that any such silliness lends support for your gawds?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No but bright minds of science were provoked to say they came from space aliens so they created a theory on that evidence.see how a vivid imagination works.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Who was "provoked".


----------



## numan (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?


You get more incoherent with each posting. Many of the sandstone deposits were formed by wind action -- no water involved. They are recognizable to geologists and can be seen forming today in many places. Animals in the distant past were often covered by the sand (wind action, no water involved) and fossilized *right in the sand!!* 

The Grand Canyon itself is about 6 million years old, The sandstone there has nothing to do with the Colorado River!! It was formed hundreds of millions of years ago!!

By the way, have you ever heard of radioactive dating? Or do you imagine that Jehovah waved his Magic Fingers here, there, and everywhere all over the globe to make uranium decay at various different rates in order to fool the geologists?

I think you must be at least at the borderlines of insanity!!
.


----------



## Montrovant (May 29, 2013)

Boss, a quick question : if no one would argue so long or hard against something they didn't believe, do you think YWC secretly believes in evolution (or to be more specific macro-evolution)?  After all, he's spent years arguing against it, would he do that if he didn't believe?


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> You claim that people in this thread who say they don't believe in god actually do, then wonder what assumption you might be making.



I'm not making any assumptions, people don't argue this much about things they aren't passionate about. My experience has been, most of the god-haters who spend this much time responding to threads such as this, are not those who don't believe in god. It is god who is the object of their hate and rage, and they must believe god exists. People who really don't believe in god, couldn't care less about this thread. 



> You clearly don't understand the phrase 'it boils down to'.  I was not directly quoting you saying 'because I say so', I was summarizing the basics of many of your arguments.  When you argue that the spiritual exists, but those who do not believe in it cannot see it, that argument boils down to 'because I say so'.  If it makes you feel better, rephrase it.  Perhaps as 'trust me'?



But that wasn't what I said. It's also not an accurate summary of any argument I have made. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp with regard to acceptance, if you refuse to accept spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, the evidence you need to prove god can't be realized. I even reversed the argument to illustrate this point: IF someone rejects physical science and physical evidence, preferring to adhere to spiritual evidence alone, there is no way to "prove" anything to them with science or physical evidence. You can explain things until you are blue in the face, if they don't accept your evidence, they aren't going to comprehend. 



> You may think your definitions are clear, but when you define something as a thing which cannot be empirically observed, which does not exist in physical reality, it leaves you open to say nearly anything about that thing.  It is your spirituality, it is god, it is a savage pink unicorn, anything you say about the spiritual realm is valid by that definition.



Several problems here... many people do empirically observe the effects of spiritual nature. Spiritual nature does exist in reality, but it exists in a spiritual state, not physical. It's illogical to demand spirituality be proven physically. I have avoided specific incarnations of what humans develop to explain their spiritual connections, but I am not aware that any group of spiritual believers have ever thought of god as a savage pink unicorn. This is merely something you conjured up to mock and ridicule spirituality. Why can't you seriously debate the subject? Is it because you really don't have an argument? You have to create these imaginary memes and nonsense, to denigrate and ridicule others, because you lack the ammunition to defeat the argument presented. 



> Evidence doesn't matter?
> Yes, nearly all animals have some level of intelligence.  Do you not understand variations in degree?  Do you not believe that human intelligence is both greater than other animal species, and gives us the capacity to think of things most, or all, other animal species cannot?



Well, if nearly all animals have intelligence, I would say this disqualifies intelligence as our most defining characteristic. Spirituality, on the other hand, is ONLY practiced by humans. We are the ONLY species with this characteristic.... hence, it is our most defining characteristic. 



> I'm not arguing that other animals worry about what happens when they die.  I'm arguing that most, if not all other animals are incapable of doing so.



I agree, it's because other animals are not spiritually connected. 



> I have claimed that fear of death is one of the major things supernatural belief provides an answer to or at least comfort from.



Sorry, but this "fear of death" is not present in nature. Other animals and living things, do not need or require answers or comfort. If that were the case, if we had evidence to support this in nature, I could accept that humans created spirituality to deal with our fear of death, but since that isn't the case in nature, I can't come to this conclusion. Since this "fear of death" thing is so prevalent in man, and nowhere else in nature, I have to think it may be related to our other unique attribute of spirituality. My belief is, the spiritual connection made by man, which is indeed a real thing, is what prompts man to ask the question and need reassurance and comfort. You've simply not rationally or logically refuted my argument. 



> I don't understand why you keep coming back to this.  Why is the lack of human fear in animals evidence of spirituality?  If other animals are INCAPABLE of the same kind of contemplation of death that humanity is, if they lack the intellectual capacity to fear death as we do or desire comfort as we do, how is that evidence of spirituality?  You may as well say that because a tree does not worship a higher power, it is evidence of man's spiritual connection.
> Again, you may be correct about the spiritual, but your arguments in favor of it are very strange!



The argument made, was that humans invented spirituality to cope with fear of death, which simply does not naturally exist in any other species of life. It's an irrational assumption that humans made up something from imagination, to cope with a fear that isn't natural or isn't present in any other living thing. Again, because humans make a very real spiritual connection with something outside the physical realm, it induces humans to think about and contemplate what happens to their spiritual self, after they die. It is THROUGH spirituality that man has this "fear of death" which you are trying to credit for invention of spirituality. It defies nature, it defies logic, it defies reason and rationality. It's like arguing that humans invented computers because Windows 7 won't run on a calculator. You have the proverbial cart ahead of the horse.

No other creature has spirituality, no other creature contemplates what happens after death. This is not some quirky coincidence. 



> What about black holes is unexplainable?  I'm sure there's plenty we don't know, but as I understand it the current theories and evidence about black holes fits within the laws of physics.  I'm no expert, and I'm honestly interested in how I'm wrong if you want to explain.
> I certainly agree that science doesn't know everything and has had to change or completely recant things, and likely will many times in the future.



Maybe you should study up on the subject? Every fucking thing is "explainable" whether the explanations are valid or not. Many times, we "explain" things with theories, ideas that haven't been confirmed as facts or laws, but have validity of evidence to reasonable minds. Often, people will resort to "faith" in these theories as proven fact, as is often the case with evolution. 

Black holes are interesting because they defy everything we thought we knew with regard to physics. This has sparked an entirely new genre of science called Quantum Physics. Now it's interesting, because QP takes physics out of the realm of natural physics, and theorizes things that natural physical sciences doesn't currently support. To examine QP theory, you have to check your preconceptions of physics at the door and keep an open mind. In a way, this also applies to spiritual nature. 



> You haven't won this argument, nor have I, as it really cannot be won.  It is entirely opinion based.  You have provided what evidence you can for your beliefs, but nothing definitive.  It cannot be, as by your own definition there is no tangible evidence possible for the spiritual.



Well, the argument in the OP stands until someone refutes it, and so far, no one has. It's not an opinion, it is an argument, made with points and evidence to support them. We are inundated with your opinion that the argument is wrong, but you aren't supporting it with anything more than your opinions, which are found to be highly irrational and illogical. There is plenty of tangible evidence for the spiritual nature that does exist, you just have to believe in spiritual nature. If you reject it, you can't see the evidence... just like the religious nut who refuses to accept science. 

I admitted in the first two paragraphs, if your perception is, spiritual nature does not exist, no one will ever be able to prove god's existence to you. We can talk for another 50 pages, you still won't be any closer to answering the question. That's why these threads go on forever, and never change any minds. In order for an objective evaluation, you have to approach the question in an unbiased manner, and you have to accept, at least the possibility, of spiritual nature's existence. If you refuse, there is no amount of physical evidence to answer the question. When you can accept that spiritual nature does exist, the evidence for god is overwhelming and irrefutable. This is why god-haters must continue to reject it. 



> Similar arguments could be made for the existence of other supernatural things, be it ghosts, or telepathy, or the gods of religions.  As long as something is not observable or testable in the physical realm in which we reside, it will remain a subjective belief.  Even most of those who have the spiritual connection you believe in most likely think you are wrong in many specifics, since you don't follow their particular religious beliefs.



Again, you are clinging to physical sciences to explain something that is not physical in nature. You will get nowhere in evaluating the question at hand. I have purposely made my argumentative points without the help of religion or religious teachings. I have repeatedly clarified, this is not to be confused for a debate on theology or religious incarnations of various gods. While those are manifestations (and evidence) of a human spiritual connection, they have nothing to do with the question of spiritual presence. They do support my argument that humans are devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self, and always have been. They could have very well, wrongly interpreted this connection, or used their imaginations to construct an inaccurate understanding of the connection, but the connection existed, nonetheless. This is not about religion, it's about the human attribute of spirituality, which has been with us for all of our existence in some form, and remains the dominant and prevailing attribute in our species, which defines us uniquely as a species. 



> So, I understand the belief that humanity's supernatural worship and superstition through our history must be based on something real.  I simply disagree.  I think it is quite possible that humans have created these beliefs without any real spiritual, magical, or supernatural forces existing.  You give more weight to human belief than I do.  That is unlikely to change for either of us, at least in the course of a message board discussion.



If there were any examples in nature, from any other life form, that this is natural or normal, I might agree that it's a possibility. As it stands, it defies all logic. You seriously want to believe, the smartest of all creatures, needed to invent a security blanket to cope with death, and a placebo to fill in gaps of knowledge. No other creature does that... EVER! Even the simplest, least intelligent life forms, do not create fake anomalies or behaviors in order to thrive and exist. You keep running to human intelligence, but our advanced intelligence is a byproduct of spirituality. We're unique to other animals in so many ways, but the one thing that we have, which no other animal has, is spiritual connection. It is our most defining attribute as a species.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss, a quick question : if no one would argue so long or hard against something they didn't believe, do you think YWC secretly believes in evolution (or to be more specific macro-evolution)?  After all, he's spent years arguing against it, would he do that if he didn't believe?



Why do you insist on taking everything I say out of context, and spewing back out some idiocy that I never said? What is that about? 

I never said that people won't argue long and hard about what they don't believe in. I simply said, many people who profess to not believe in god, are huge believers in god. Either you are capable of understanding that statement or you're not. We see in this thread, people who continue to want to make this a religious debate, and this is because their personal beliefs include anger and resentment for religion and religious people. About 2/3 of the time, these individuals truly do believe in god, they are angry and vindictive toward god, and this results in inadvertently thinking this is a religious argument. The main problem is, they have a misconception about god, they believe in a god that doesn't have to exist for a spiritual higher power to exist. They are afraid to open their minds to spiritual evidence because they fear it opens the door to acknowledgment of the god they believe in but hate. That is why it is so important to check religion and religious beliefs at the door, when evaluating this question. I have focused on the most defining attribute of our species, human spirituality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?
> ...



Try again Age of the Grand Canyon | How Old is the Grand Canyon

Yes I have heard of the dating method I believe all dating methods are unreliable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?
> ...



How did so many marine fossils find their way to the Grand Canyon ?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not surprisingly, facts often refute what you believe.

Did you happen to notice that the author of your cut and paste article identifies the Grand Canyon as being millions of years "old".

Did you happen to notice how frequently you refute your own claims?


----------



## Montrovant (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not making this a religious argument.  I am comparing your belief to religious belief in an attempt to show you that you can be just as intransigent and unmoving as those whose beliefs you use as proof yet denigrate at the same time.
> ...



Notice the part I have put in bold.  You said that someone won't spend this amount of time arguing against something they don't believe is real.  YWC doesn't believe macro-evolution is real per his own words.  He has spent far more time arguing against it than this thread has existed.  The creationism thread, in which he argues against the existence of macro-evolution, has gone on for years.

So, by your reasoning, does that mean YWC is secretly convinced macro-evolution is real, since he would not argue so long against something he didn't believe in?  You can claim you never said that people won't argue long against something they don't believe exists, but it's quoted right here that you did.

I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between disliking or anger against religion, or religious people, and disliking or anger against god.  One can dislike religion, one can become angry at religious people, and not believe in the existence of god.  

This is an argument I've seen a number of times from the religious; most people aren't actually unbelievers, they just won't admit they believe.  It is another example of why I have compared you to followers of organized religion.  You make some of the same arguments.

You don't make assumptions, you KNOW that others don't truly disbelieve god.  You are able to read their thoughts, since their words obviously say otherwise?  Barring telepathy, how is it anything BUT an assumption?


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it proves it's self 
you have no argument ,that is to say you have no legitimate or valid argument.
just willful ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false 
We know that the Earth's crust is made of two grand categories of rocks: basaltic and granitic. Basaltic rocks underlie the seafloors and granitic rocks make up the continents. The seismic velocities of these rock types in the lab match the velocities in the crust down to the Moho, so we're pretty sure that the Moho marks a real change in rock chemistry. The Moho isn't a perfect boundary, because some crustal rocks and mantle rocks can masquerade as the other, but even so everyone who talks about the crust, whether in seismological or petrological terms, fortunately means the same thing. 

In general, then, the crust has two types, oceanic crust and continental crust. 

Oceanic Crust

Oceanic crust covers about 60 percent of the Earth's surface. Oceanic crust is thin and youngno more than about 20 km thick and never older than about 180 million years. Everything older has been pulled underneath the continents by subduction. Oceanic crust is born at the midocean ridges, where pressure upon the underlying mantle is released and the peridotite there begins to melt in response. The part that melts becomes basaltic lava, which rises and erupts while the remaining peridotite becomes depleted. 

The midocean ridges migrate over the Earth like Roombas, extracting the basaltic component from the mantle as they go. What that means has to do with rock chemistry. Basaltic rocks contain more silicon and aluminum than the peridotite left behind, which has more iron and magnesium. Basaltic rocks are less dense. In terms of minerals, basalt has more feldspar and amphibole, less olivine and pyroxene, than peridotite. In geologist's shorthand, oceanic crust is mafic while oceanic mantle is ultramafic. 

Oceanic crust, being so thin, is a very small fraction of the Earthabout 0.1 percentbut its life cycle serves to refine the rocks of the upper mantle into new rocks with a lighter blend of elements. It also extracts the so-called incompatible elements, which don't fit into mantle minerals and move into the liquid melt. These in turn move into the continental crust as plate tectonics proceeds. 

Continental Crust

Continental crust is thick and oldon average about 50 km thick and about 2 billion years oldand it covers about 40 percent of the planet. Whereas almost all of the oceanic crust is underwater, most of the continental crust is exposed to the air. 

The continents slowly grow over geologic time as oceanic crust and seafloor sediments are pulled beneath them by subduction. The descending basalts have the water and incompatible elements squeezed out of them, and this material rises to trigger more melting in the so-called subduction factory. 

The continental crust is made of granitic rocks, which have even more silicon and aluminum than the basaltic oceanic crust; they also have more oxygen thanks to the atmosphere. Granitic rocks are even less dense than basalt. In terms of minerals, granite has even more feldspar, less amphibole than basalt and almost no pyroxene or olivine, plus it has abundant quartz. In geologist's shorthand, continental crust is felsic. 

Continental crust makes up less than 0.4 percent of the Earth, but it represents the end product of a double refining process, first at midocean ridges and second at subduction zones. The total amount of continental crust is slowly growing. 

The incompatible elements that end up in the continents are important because they include the major radioactive elements uranium, thorium and potassium. They create heat, which makes the continents act like electric blankets on top of the mantle. The heat also softens thick places in the crust, like the Tibetan Plateau, and makes them spread sideways. 

Continental crust is too buoyant to return to the mantle. When continents collide, the crust can thicken to almost 100 km, but that is temporary. The limestones and other sedimentary rocks that form on the continents are likewise lighter than basalt. Even the sand and clay that is washed off into the sea returns to the continents on the conveyor belt of the oceanic crust. Continents are truly permanent, self-sustaining features of the Earth's surface. 
About the Crust of the Earth


let me guess you got that bull shit from a creation science site.
oh yeah. I know you will not read the article which btw is not opinion but hard fact.
so read this " The limestones and other sedimentary rocks that form on the continents are likewise lighter than basalt. Even the sand and clay that is washed off into the sea returns to the continents on the conveyor belt of the oceanic crust."
slap dick.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?
> ...


wrong! he's full on nut job.


----------



## dblack (May 29, 2013)

Ok.. so. I'm totally willing, able and ready to acknowledge that gods exists. But the question remains - what is their nature? What are they like?


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Fossils

With marine environments creating many of the sedimentary rock layers in the canyon over the past 525 million years, marine fossils are quite common. Species changed over time, but similar fossils can be found in most of the marine-based rocks at Grand Canyon.

Stromatolites
 The oldest fossils at Grand Canyon are 1,200 million to 740 million years old. Stromatolites are the limestone structures formed by photosynthesizing bacteria called cyanobacteria. They created layers of alternating slimy bacteria and sediment in very shallow water, dominating shallow seas until predators, such as trilobites, came into the picture. Today stromatolites only live in a few shallow ocean areas with high salinity. The salinity deters predation and allows the stromatolites to survive.
Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Stromatolites have been around for 3.5 billion years. The entire face of the earth has altered during that period. There are sea fossils on mountain tops but that is not evidence of the "great flood" but instead plate tectonics. It is quite pointless trying to explain the formation of the planet and the evolution of life upon it to those who will take one tiny thing out of context and use it as a club to beat up on science.


----------



## daws101 (May 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


true< but it is amusing to watch "those" fail and flail.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



However long it took God to create it and what the global flood caused. yes approximately 5,000 years of erosion.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Are you kidding


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





Slap Dick is that all you've got.

The continental crust is the layer of igneous, sedimentary,

Look your favorite source.

Continental crust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think will move around during a global flood ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



This kinda contradicts what you were trying to say in a previous post but I am well aware of the Grand Canyon site.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Like I am not aware of plate tectonics lol. That still does not explain marine fossils on mountain tops.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Like you are aware of plate tectonics,  lol.

Regarding plate tectonics, do a search with terms such as "uplift" and "subsidence". Fossil sea shells on mountain peaks are not uncommon when those peaks were much lower in the distant past.

Did you ever get through 7th grade earth science?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Which is why people point and laugh at you.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No one was "provoked", right?

Did it occur to you that there might be something phony about an article entitled "25 Greatest Scientific Hoaxes In History", when the very first article was about crop circles? 

It never occurred to you that crop circles have nothing to do with science experimentation and that they were long ago identified as pranks?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Being a believer I would expect to find marine fossils on mountains so it fit's my theory. Fossils of sea creatures are found well above sea level on every continent. Heck the Himalayas at 0ver 29,000 feet they are found.

God spoke about plate tectonics here  Psa 104:8  (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them. 


So there were two reasons that plate tectonics took place there was water added from the rain and the great fountains of the deep were broken open adding molten rock could cause the ocean floor to rise.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noahs life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This is what caused the flood and plate tectonics. The marine fossils were swept over the mountains that is why they are found on mountain tops.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why is there a theory about aliens coming to earth and this is consider evidence for the theory ? You have yet to address the rest of the hoaxes.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 29, 2013)

Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.







The only truth to this thread is that it's posed as a question.




`​


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 29, 2013)

*Luck:*  Having that post at the top of page 129


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There was no biblical flood. Your wishing it were true is irrelevant.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm not interested in responding to every silly collection of cut and paste nonsense you scour from the web. 

So the answer is a blunt "no".  No reputable scientists were "provoked" to admit that crop circles were the result of space aliens.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'll bet you a dollar that there *was* a flood. 


And I'll bet another that it consumed the WHOLE world of some Monkeys...  
I'll bet a third that the Monkeys told the story to any Monkeys who'd listen, and I'll make it four questions for five dollars that Monkeys can imagine. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2waxMJ_5Y]"Imagine" - John Lennon - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BreezeWood (May 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > *Boss*: What other animals don't have, is spirituality. This is our most defining attribute.
> ...




are you agreeing with Genesis: "and let them have dominion" ... as defining Spirituality rather than as an inclusion for all of Creation ? 



at any rate the Everlasting would be exceedingly boring for some that it would be relegated to mankind alone .... all of Creation throughout the Universe might be a little more appealing, for those who accomplish the task.


if you produced 4.5 billion year old human remains from "The Beginning" I still would not read the Bible - Spirituality for humans did not start in the present Physiological form but rather as with all life forms on Earth in something entirely different.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.
> 
> 
> The only truth to this thread is that it's posed as a question.
> ...



There is nothing ironic about it. The majority of the posts are from people who reject spiritual nature, as the OP argument correctly identifies and deals with in the first two paragraphs. None of the points in the OP argument have been refuted, every counterpoint has been found illogical or unreasonable. In the absence of anything to counter the OP argument, some are inclined to hoist their uninformed opinions as flags of victory, and throw out a few insults or ridicule for good measure. Detractors have attempted to derail the debate, change the subject, turn this into a religious argument, raise superfluous nonsense, attack me personally, denigrate religion, dismiss the points made in the argument without any basis, reject common sense and logic, reject human nature and science itself... anything and everything, except admitting the argument was valid.  At least you aren't resorting to any of that, you just dance in now and again, to proclaim god is not real because you say so, and laugh at the idea.


----------



## dblack (May 29, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe it's a clever attempt to offer the dogged determination of believers to defend their faith, in the face of all reason and logic, as the 'proof' in question.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



You seem to be speaking in some kind of code language or broken sentences that don't make sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, none of this makes any sense to me.

If you can form coherent sentences and try again, it would be appreciated. I actually thought you made one of the most brilliant observations in the thread the other day, when you stated that "life itself, is spiritual." Maybe that was accidental, or maybe you meant something entirely different, but it's still a great observation. 

4.5 billion years ago, the Earth was uninhabitable. It took at least a billion years or more, for the planet to cool down, the atmosphere to stabilize and conditions for supporting life to exist. The Bible only came along a couple thousand years ago, it is a religious book, inspired through spirituality. The Bible can be completely incorrect about god, and a spiritual power still exists. I'm not here to defend The Bible or any other religious teaching. My focus has been on the attribute of human spirituality, which has existed as long as humans have existed. 

We connect to something spiritually, we always have and always will. Religions are merely evidence of this profound connection, whether they are correct or incorrect in depicting god. The fact that we can make this connection to some power greater than self, is what has enabled our advancement as a species. We're the only species with the capacity to connect spiritually, to a higher power.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The problem that we're left with regarding the biblical flood is that there is just no evidence for it. 

Not surprisingly, the biblical flood tale is just one of many. Tales and fables tend to expand, become larger than life and change as they're past from person to person. 

Pick a flood - any flood. 

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## LittleNipper (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I really like the Beatles (historically speaking) but John Lennon is dead. That should tell you something. Pictures of young people cavorting are nice, but the reality is the young get old and the cavorting returns to a slowed craw... If one doesn't have heaven one has nothing to look forward to.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Geological evidence of the flood you say that didn't happen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8&feature=fvwp&NR=1]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What copy and paste ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie if you want the truth you will watch these videos. You have both marine fossils and dry land fossils buried together in strata.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie if you want the truth you will watch these videos. You have both marine fossils and dry land fossils buried together in strata.



Dear, you are perhaps the last person on the planet I would believe spewing a slogan such as "if you want the truth". 

Why would you think there is anything remarkable about marine and land animal fosills in the same strata?

Lordy, man. You really never did pass 7th grade earth science, right? I suppose science was not thought to be real important at your madrassah.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie if you want the truth you will watch these videos. You have both marine fossils and dry land fossils buried together in strata.
> ...



I possess a degree in science that I am very proud of thank you. You once again did not look at the evidence that supports the global flood because you really don't want the truth. Marine and land Fossils found buried together in 7 different layers of strata world wide your beliefs just got blown up. An intelligent person takes correction and accepts it or atleast say's this raises doubt on what they have been taught.

You wanted evidence of the global flood you have it. Imagine that,creationist's using scientific evidence to verify the truth of the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Heck if the great fountains of the deep broke up would that not have produced earthquakes and what do earthquakes produce in the oceans ? That is right tsunamis.

Hmm yeah plenty of evidence God has given you proving his existence and the words of the bible.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have previously offered nothing but silliness from Harun Yahya as "proof" of the biblical flood. 

Imagine that. A Christian fundie making unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Heck if the great fountains of the deep broke up would that not have produced earthquakes and what do earthquakes produce in the oceans ? That is right tsunamis.
> 
> Hmm yeah plenty of evidence God has given you proving his existence and the words of the bible.



Heck. That was nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Your Ideological agenda comes through loud and clear once again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Heck if the great fountains of the deep broke up would that not have produced earthquakes and what do earthquakes produce in the oceans ? That is right tsunamis.
> ...



What was nonsense ?


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nonsense. I'm not the one cutting and pasting from religious fundamentalist websites.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What you wrote. Did you somehow miss that I was responding to what you wrote?


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".



Eyewitness testimony from billions of people across thousands of years, is mighty compelling evidence, in my opinion. Too bad you can't disprove their testimony.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What did I copy and paste from religious websites they were videos on youtube.

When you copy and paste you do it from anti religious sites but your refusal to address the evidence presented is revealing your anti God agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you need pictures of the vents in the oceans to confirm what I am saying from a nonreligious site they got pictures of these vents in the ocean floor and I have posted them before is your memory slipping ?

http://www.google.com/search?q=pict...CHqSmiQLh54H4DQ&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh. Well, if it's a video on YouTube, it must be true. 

I'll also acknowledge a refusal to address evidence for Leprechauns, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, etc., as claims of evidence have been debunked.... as yours have. 

I don't have an anti gawds agenda as much as I have an anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge and anti-human agenda as is so typical of religious zealots.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh please. Not your silly "vents" thing again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Here ya go Hollie.

Expedition Explores Deepest Known Hydrothermal Vents | Deep Sea Life | LiveScience


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Address the evidence troll,wow you're thick.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How did the writers of the bible know these fountains existed that deep they didn't.

Sorry but you're are the biggest Ideologue I have ever had an exchange with. Go ahead and wallow in your bed of misery


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The fountains of the deep in the bible were water fountains. Those vents in your link were not water fountains.
Try again.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Not the same fountains.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wow you're an angry fundie. 

As I've instructed you previously, I'm not interested in responding to every goofy YouTube video, Harun Yahya article and fundie website you can scour from the web. 

You seem to believe that the entirety of your argument is supported by dumping a few  youtube videos in a post and expecting others to spend their time responding to such silliness.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

> I don't have an anti gawds agenda..



No, of course you don't... it's obvious by your own demeanor. 

You probably actually love religious people and have religious friends.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Exactly. 

When ywc uses terms such as "fountains of the deep", the source of such terminology is recognizable. 

Too bad the bible didn't give us a comprehensive description of hydrothermal vents instead  of language that only a fundie would accept


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.
> ...



Well clearly 'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists' eludes everyone posting in this thread, and that's the point.  God is and will remain UNprovable.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.
> ...



130+ pages and cooking, baby!


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Proof would be a game changer for this average Monkey...


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...






*sigh*


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> > I don't have an anti gawds agenda..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You share a similar dislike with ywc. You find being held accountable for your claims to be an annoyance. Much like your "spiritual nature", claims, similar claims to supernaturalism, and magic share a common theme: the claims are typically supported with "because I say so".


----------



## LittleNipper (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



After 2000 years people still care concerning Jesus.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Clearly there are several posters who believe the case has been made. The question continues to elude those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You are correct, god will always remain unprovable to those who don't accept spiritual evidence. This confirms the first point raised in the OP argument, thanks.


----------



## numan (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Well clearly 'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists' eludes everyone posting in this thread, and that's the point.  God is and will remain UNprovable.


Well, proof of the existential status of the Deity remains as elusive as it has been for thousands of years, but this thread has definitely proven that uneducated, irrational, logically challenged religious people exist !! · · 
.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't have an anti gawds agenda..
> ...


I keep being told that I am supporting my arguments with "because I say so" and I'll be damned if I can find where I've ever posted that. Something crazy must be happening to your internet or something. My claims are backed by 70k+ years of human spirituality. I've not claimed supernaturalism or magic, only spiritual nature, which does indeed exist. I'm sorry I can't prove spiritual nature with physical sciences, but physical sciences are inadequate to apply and totally illogical, when it comes to spiritual nature. 

Even though there is no way to prove spiritual nature with physical science, we can look to physical science, namely, the science of animal behavior, and we find that humans are devoutly connected to spirituality for all of the species existence. We find that no civilization has ever lasted very long without spiritual foundation. It is our most defining attribute, and the basis for everything that makes humans unique. Human advancement is proof it's real.


----------



## numan (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".
> ...


Testimony as strong as most of the people who have ever lived being certain that the Sun goes around the Earth?
.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

numan said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Well clearly 'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists' eludes everyone posting in this thread, and that's the point.  God is and will remain UNprovable.
> ...



Yes, and it seems like you and the Church of the God Haters would get tired and move on.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I know you believe this is a clever retort, but the only thing it illustrates, is how relatively young science is.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's dishonest to characterize people as "refusing to accept spiritual evidence" when you have never offered such evidence. 
To claim there is evidence of something but then acknowledge that such evidence is not material, testsble or demonstrable in any meaningful way is silly.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, no. It was a relevant comparison of what people believed, "felt" was true and what appealed to theological convictions. Much like your claims to "spirituality".


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nice try lol.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

> proof of the existential status of the Deity remains as elusive as it has been for thousands of years



Let's be clear, there is no argument made in the OP for a deity of any kind. God is used as a metaphor for the spiritual force humans connect with. There is no "existential status" of spiritual nature, it's existence of presence is not physical, and can't be confirmed or verified by physical evidence. The proof can only be spiritual proof, any other type would be illogical. Those who are able to accept spiritual proof, find overwhelming evidence of spiritual existence, and those who have closed their minds to any possibility of spiritual nature, will never be able to accept spiritual evidence, and will never find proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

Is there anyone willing to explain how we have land fossils and marine fossils buried together in the same layers of strata which happens to be 7 different layers of strata world wide that these are found buried together. how is this evidence not strong evidence for the global flood ?


----------



## numan (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, have you ever heard of radioactive dating? Or do you imagine that Jehovah waved his Magic Fingers here, there, and everywhere all over the globe to make uranium decay at various different rates in order to fool the geologists?
> ...


Oh, you _believe_ they are unreliable -- so by Boss's way of thinking, your beliefs must be true!! How fortunate that your "beliefs" keep your mind unsullied by the enormous amount of evidence supporting radioactive dating!!

But you claim the Bible is a dating method, so if all dating methods are unreliable, doesn't that make the Bible unreliable? · · 

Gentlemen and ladies of the jury, Hewasbornyesterday's claims are so absurd that I think it is time to consider the hypothesis that he is a thorough-going religious sceptic who is pretending to be a fundamentalist, out of a wicked sense of humor, in order to see how much he can enrage rational people!!
.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Go back and read the OP again. To begin my argument, we had to establish terminology. If you don't accept spiritual nature, you have no concept of spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you. Exist, means to have a physically measurable presence of existence.... that's what it means to you, and the concept of spiritual existence is beyond your understanding. The idea that god could ever be physically measurable or testable, is indeed silly. And it's silly for me to waste my time trying to prove god to you, because you will only accept physical evidence, and it's silly to try and prove a physical god exists. 

Now, not everyone is like you. I know that may come a surprise, but soak it in, it's true. Some people have an understanding and acceptance of spiritual nature and spiritual presence. For those people, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. It's spiritual evidence, which you don't believe in, but you see.... that's what kind of evidence is required to prove spiritual existence and spiritual entities. These people have a long history of testimony to the benefits of things received through spiritual connection, it is so overwhelming, they had to invent a word to specifically apply to these benefits, they call them "blessings."


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


creationist pseudoscience at it finest.

if that was true then what about this:The 4th millennium BC saw major changes in human culture. It marked the beginning of the Bronze Age and of writing.

The city states of Sumer and the kingdom of Egypt were established and grew to prominence. Agriculture spread widely across Eurasia. World population in the course of the millennium doubled, approximately from 7 to 14 million people in the area surrounding them.
somebody's talking out their ass and it isn't me....


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Wrong as usual. You are claiming a metaphysical nature for the spiritual which you have yet to prove. I have proven the existential nature of the spiritual and so far that is the only spiritual evidence that has been proven.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


 so you say and talk is cheap. Oh and don't put words in my mouth I have never made such a claim concerning the bible. The bible don't give us a definite timeline.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So... following two paragraphs of flailing about, we're left with nothing but "because I say so" as evidence for your claims.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



So when science came along and explained that wasn't the case, why didn't humans abandon spiritual belief and devote themselves to praising and worshiping science instead? 

I didn't claim spirituality, it exists. Humans have been practicing spirituality for thousands and thousands of years. Way longer than science. In fact, you can trace spirituality in humans back to the origin of the species. You can't show any examples of a human civilization which existed over any long period of time, without spiritual foundation. As a species, spirituality is our most defining attribute... that is science, not "my claims."


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 since there was no 'great" flood  nothing.
however during the uncountable number of not so great floods in earth history lot's of rock was transported but not enough to move continents.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no, just reveling your slapdickery.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


actually it supports it.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


major bump


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I've not claimed anything metaphysical or existential. There is a spiritual nature just as there is a physical nature, and it resides in the same universe and reality. It is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It is the force which enables the miracle of life. It is what makes common inorganic elements organic. It's what causes the properties of atoms in electricity to behave as they do, and gravity to behave as it does, and the laws of physics to be reliable, enabling science itself. It is what created the Big Bang, because there was nothing in the physical universe which didn't exist yet.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## numan (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But, oh, intellectually Slippery One, that is completely irrelevant! The point is that you claim the universality of "spiritual belief" (whatever that may be) "proves" that it is a reality. I was pointing out that universality of a belief, no matter how  long it has been believed, or how strongly believed, does not prove anything!! Belief that the Sun goes around the Earth was universal before Aristarchus, and near universal even after him! It was so strongly believed that if you had questioned it, most people would have thought that you were saying something as ridiculous as that white is black!! *BUT THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG!!!!!!!*



> I didn't claim spirituality, it exists. Humans have been practicing spirituality for thousands and thousands of years. Way longer than science. In fact, you can trace spirituality in humans back to the origin of the species. You can't show any examples of a human civilization which existed over any long period of time, without spiritual foundation. As a species, spirituality is our most defining attribute... that is science, not "my claims."


But there you go again!! The dog returns to his vomit! That statement "proves" nothing! All that claimed "experience" proves NOTHING !!
.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bahahahahahahaha! this is not evidence it's pseudoscience proselytizing.
this is what evidence looks like: Ayers Rock Facts - Geology
Both Uluru and Kata Tjuta are left overs of a huge sediment that has formed hundreds of millions of years ago:
Sand was laid down in a basin which formed about 900 million years ago. Material continued to collect at the bottom of this ancient sea bed until about 300 million years ago.
550 million years ago the area was lifted and folded and mountain ranges formed. These ranges eroded in the following millions of years, leaving huge sediments at the bottom.
About 300 million years ago the seas disappeared. The remaining sediment folded and fractured again. In this major process the sediment layers that now form Uluru were tilted, so that today they are at a 85° angle. Kata Tjuta was tilted some 20°. The whole region was lifted up above sea level in the process.
This means Uluru and Kata Tjuta are the only visible tips of a massive underground rock slab.
You could even argue that the description of Uluru as a monolith is inaccurate, as it is actually part of this huge underground rock formation that also includes Kata Tjuta.
The intriguing sculpted shapes, valleys and ridges, caves, potholes and plunge pools are the result of the last few hundreds of millions of years of erosion. The flaky surface is due to chemical decomposition.
Uluru is made of arkose sandstone (a sandstone rich in feldspar), whereas Kata Tjuta is a conglomerate of gravel and boulders, cemented together by mud and sand.
Uluru is naturally grey, but the iron content of the rock is "rusting" at the surface, resulting in the distinctive red iron oxide coating.
Ayers Rock Facts


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 hey slap dick those hydro thermal vents  are not the same as what's mention in the bible ...once again you're willfully and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This is because you refuse to believe spiritual evidence, but much like the detractors of Aristarchus, your beliefs are wrong. It defies all reasonable logic that the smartest most advanced creatures would need to invent a placebo for knowledge and security blanket for irrational fears. That it would maintain this 'delusion' for it's entire existence, in order to enable the remarkable accomplishments man has achieved.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"This is because you refuse to believe spiritual evidence, but much like the detractors of Aristarchus, your beliefs are wrong. It defies all reasonable logic that the smartest most advanced creatures would need to invent a placebo for knowledge and security blanket for irrational fears. That it would maintain this 'delusion' for it's entire existence, in order to enable the remarkable accomplishments man has achieved, _(because I say so -ed.) _ 

Here ya' go. I corrected your post.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How did this address the main question that your side has no answer for. 7 different layers of strata in every layer of strata around the earth we have both land fossils and marine fossils buried together explain away dumbshit. Scientists can't explain it away so I doubt you would Wikipedia boy. They used scientific evidence and the scientific method if you say otherwise you are either the dumbest person that ever owned a computer or you once again are talking out your ass and have no Idea what you copy and paste.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Numbnuts when the bible was written they communicated things the best they could. Do you actually think they ment fountains the way they are defined today ? You one stupid person atleast with ed I think he was joking lol.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And for billions of other Monkeys too.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".
> ...



So "*billions of people*" have actually *SEEN* your deity with *THEIR OWN EYES*? Whose anal cavity did you extract that fecal matter from?


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There you go again, first denying the metaphysical and then asserting the metaphysical. You have yet to prove any of the metaphysical claims you just made for the spiritual. You simply pontificate their existence.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 30, 2013)

numan said:


> But, oh, intellectually Slippery One, that is completely irrelevant! The point is that you claim the universality of "spiritual belief" (whatever that may be) "proves" that it is a reality. I was pointing out that universality of a belief, no matter how  long it has been believed, or how strongly believed, does not prove anything!! Belief that the Sun goes around the Earth was universal before Aristarchus, and near universal even after him! It was so strongly believed that if you had questioned it, most people would have thought that you were saying something as ridiculous as that white is black!! *BUT THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG!!!!!!!*
> 
> .




there is a difference when people attempt to define Spirituality and what it is they are attempting to define.

the attempt is the proof of its existence ... (and can be accomplished - the same as physical proof)

it is unclear from Boss whether there is a specific component to Spirituality for each physiological form that may be self supporting after the forms demise - or not ?


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I didn't assert the metaphysical. Metaphysical is something outside of nature, and spirituality is part of nature. I don't make claims of spiritual nature, spiritualism does. I am merely revealing the flaw in your consistent demands for physical evidence of something spiritual. You are illogical and closed-minded, and spiritual proof is non existent in your mind. This is precisely why I began my argument establishing this valid point, unless you can open your mind to spiritual evidence, it is impossible to ever prove god's existence to you. It is a completely pointless endeavor. 

I also have not 'pontificated' anything, the evidence is over 70k years of human behavior. You and others continue to ignore my arguments and claim I am saying "because I say so" but that is clearly not what I have been typing for all these pages.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If "*spirituality is part of nature*" then it must have a *PHYSICAL *manifestation. Once again you shoot yourself in the foot with your inane pontifications.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I did not mention a deity, nor did I claim a deity was visible or had physical presence. Try reading what I actually posted, and don't stop to interject hidden meaning or assume something else is being said. Don't worry, I am not trying to trick you into believing in the god you hate.

Billions of people testify as witnesses to the "blessings" received through spirituality. You dismiss this evidence as coincidental and subjective, but for billions of people who witnessed it, they did not share your viewpoint. I can't ever make you accept spiritual evidence, it's beyond my ability to do. I can present it, all day long, and you can reject it as subjective and coincidental. The only thing that will ever change this, depends upon you, opening your mind to spiritual evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*Must have?* Says WHO?  Not me... looks like YOU saying that, but you wouldn't be resorting to _"because I say so"_ would you?


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yet another frantic Bossi backpedaling dance around the invisible figment of his fevered imagination.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)




----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yet another attempt by Bossi to squirm out of being hung by his own petard. *YOU* claimed that "*spirituality is part of nature*". Are you now alleging that nature *does not* manifest itself in the physical universe? Keep on  this enormous hole of yours.


----------



## Montrovant (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If you don't think people will lie to themselves or to others, either for comfort, or out of fear, or any of a host of possible reasons, I wonder how much time you've spent around other people.  

If you don't think people will believe the lies that others tell, either because they are trusted (like a parent) or because it fits with a personal bias, I question your understanding of human nature.

If you think people are generally especially rational or logical, you should open your eyes and ears to the world around you.

This isn't just a case of religion.  People do the same thing with just about anything you can think of : politics, sex, relationships, work, etc.

It is illogical to think that just because people have believed in thousands of different kinds of higher powers, or supernatural creatures and forces, or magics, or what-have-you, that those extremely varied beliefs must all be based on something real.  That the person who believed in Odin the all-father was experiencing the same thing as the person who believes the ghost of their grandfather still wanders their home, and the same as the person who believes they can cause someone bad luck through the force of their will.

Mankind has clearly maintained the same delusions for long periods of time if the major religions of our history are incorrect.  Why you think the delusion of, say, ancient Egyptians and their pantheon of gods can be true but that humanity could never delude itself en mass is beyond me.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



What are "blessings?"


----------



## Montrovant (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad you cannot prove that "connection" actually exists even with your bogus "spiritual evidence".
> ...



Too bad their testimony isn't the same!


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> I did not mention a deity, nor did I claim a deity was visible or had physical presence. Try reading what I actually posted, and don't stop to interject hidden meaning or assume something else is being said. Don't worry, I am not trying to trick you into believing in the god you hate.
> 
> Billions of people testify as witnesses to the "blessings" received through spirituality. You dismiss this evidence as coincidental and subjective, but for billions of people who witnessed it, they did not share your viewpoint. I can't ever make you accept spiritual evidence, it's beyond my ability to do. I can present it, all day long, and you can reject it as subjective and coincidental. The only thing that will ever change this, depends upon you, opening your mind to spiritual evidence.



 [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

Just one question, Boss...  If the thesis of your thread is 'Proof of God', which God are you talking about?

'Cause if your line of thinkin' is that many Monkeys through Time  have felt a connection to something bigger than themselves and, from Allah, Baal & Christ through Zeus, no matter how that connection is stumbled upon, a Monkey aught to nurture that connection,


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

Sort of...


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



The common attribute is spirituality. You are trying to claim our most distinct and defining characteristic as a species of life, is nothing but a figment of imagination and delusion. I readily agree, many of the beliefs man conjures up from this very real connection to a spiritual realm, is nutty, kooky, crazy, wrong, stupid...and yes, delusional or whatever. These are the most crucial evidence that something is happening for real, people keep doing it, over and over again, for all of our existence, people have spiritually worshiped something. As you pointed out, humans have a need for this, which science can't fill, to answer questions science can't answer, to inspire us as humans and give us inner strength. It is the one thing that makes us distinctly different from all other living things. We didn't make it up.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



But it IS the same, they even came up with a universal word to describe it... BLESSING.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I did not mention a deity, nor did I claim a deity was visible or had physical presence. Try reading what I actually posted, and don't stop to interject hidden meaning or assume something else is being said. Don't worry, I am not trying to trick you into believing in the god you hate.
> ...







AVG-JOE said:


> Sort of...



Every Monkey needs to have the freedom to believe whatever a Monkey wants, with as much passion as a Monkey has, as long as a Monkey adheres to reasonable Civil Laws. 

(Insert your preferred Deity here) bless the American document that includes a prime directive for every Monkey of defending every other Monkeys right to be wrong. 


Nobody knows what happens at death.  That's why it's called 'the unknown'.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You scream that this is *NOT* about religion but then you invoke religious "blessings" when it suits your nefarious purpose. No wonder you have zero credibility. Now before you start preaching about "rejecting spiritual evidence" you need to explain why one person's "blessing" is just another person's good luck. Did the Atheist mother who survived the tornado receive a "blessing" or was she merely lucky? Needless to say you won't address this because you can't.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



  'Universal'?!?



Link please.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Just one question, Boss...  If the thesis of your thread is 'Proof of God', *which God are you talking about?*
> 
> 'Cause if your line of thinkin' is that many Monkeys through Time  have felt a connection to something bigger than themselves and, from Allah, Baal & Christ through Zeus, no matter how that connection is stumbled upon, a Monkey aught to nurture that connection,



As I explained in the OP, the specific defining of god is not essential in determining existence of a spiritual entity. My use of "god" in the argument is metaphoric. It refers to the spiritual energy or force that humans have always made connection to. Religions, and religious incarnations of this spiritual god, are manifestations of this spiritual connection. I am not here to establish the existence of any particular god or even a 'deity' entity at all. Only the presence of spiritual nature, which humans have always had the ability to connect to, and what defines our species as unique among all others...including chimps who share 98% of our DNA.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> You scream that this is *NOT* about religion but then you invoke religious "blessings" when it suits your nefarious purpose. No wonder you have zero credibility. Now before you start preaching about "rejecting spiritual evidence" you need to explain why one person's "blessing" is just another person's good luck. Did the Atheist mother who survived the tornado receive a "blessing" or was she merely lucky? Needless to say you won't address this because you can't.



This is funny, because you screamed for me to give you some kind of evidence, to prove spirituality manifests itself in the physical, and I do this... but now you complain because it is a "religious" example.  I'm sorry, but I am fresh out of examples of Atheists proclaiming the benefits of spiritual belief.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Just one question, Boss...  If the thesis of your thread is 'Proof of God', *which God are you talking about?*
> ...



Your OP proves that you are *LYING* again. You even titled this entire thread as "*Definitive Proof that GOD Exists*".


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't have a link to common sense, Joe. I assume most people have it, or they wouldn't be embarrassing themselves on a public forum like this. Every culture, regardless of the religion, has a word for "blessing" or "blessed" and it means the same thing, universally.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > You scream that this is *NOT* about religion but then you invoke religious "blessings" when it suits your nefarious purpose. No wonder you have zero credibility. Now before you start preaching about "rejecting spiritual evidence" you need to explain why one person's "blessing" is just another person's good luck. Did the Atheist mother who survived the tornado receive a "blessing" or was she merely lucky? Needless to say you won't address this because you can't.
> ...



That was yet another *EPIC FAILURE* on your part to provide any proof that "spirituality manifests itself in the physical". What you provided was merely the existence of* LUCK* that is co-opted by religions for the promotion of their cults.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Nope, the thread title is a question. *Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*

I make the argument in the OP, but the very initial point made, has to be an establishment of what each word means. We have to clarify what "definitive proof" means, what "god" means, what "exists" means... because, until we can all be on the same page with what each of these words mean, we can't begin to examine the question.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The BILLIONS of people who it happened to, who experienced it first-hand, do not share your opinion. Otherwise, they would have attributed it to luck instead of blessing. 

Ooops... looks like Epic Failure on aisle 4!


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You should include the requirement for a definition of "spirituality" in your roll call of terms above. 

As you manage to equivocate and confuse terms you claim need definition, that might help you make sense of what you're hoping to convey.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Spirituality is not PART of Nature, it is a PRODUCT of Nature. Again you merely prove the necessity for the physical existence of Nature to create the spiritual.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"Curses" gone horribly wrong!


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Like every contradiction you post the title is dishonest. It is a declarative statement dishonestly contradicted with a question mark.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the main question has already been answered, you as always have mental block every time that happens,
also your pseudoscientists did not use any scientific evidence (I've seen those clips) and there is no actually science involved. 
what they did was intentionally misinterpret evidence they did not collect or analyze and constructed a false premise to speciously speculate on to fit the creation fairytale.



  On Land and in Sea 

"The occurrence of Jurassic land and coastal sediments in western Cuba is well-known," said Iturralde-Vinent. "In these sediments I have been looking for dinosaurs for many years, and in the end the search was successful as we located a small bone. This find opens great possibilities for future research." 

The dinosaur bone was found in layers of earth from the Late Jurassic Jagua Formation in what had once been coastal sediments. 

"The deposits where the bones are found accumulated 154 to 146 million years ago in shallow marine waters very close to the shore, allowing representatives of land and marine elements be found in the same beds," said Iturralde-Vinent

Abundant remains of terrestrial vegetation such as fern trees, the fossil remains of at least two species of pterosaurs&#8212;extinct flying reptiles&#8212;and marine reptile fossils were found in the same strata. 

Iturralde-Vinent notes that such a mixture of terrestrial and marine animals is not unusual in paleontology.  


_ "The only dinosaur known from Antarctica was a fossil remain found in marine sediments," he explained. "Sometimes the animal dies and a river might carry the floating body into open waters. The bodies can float while they are in the process of decomposition." 

Expeditions in the last several years have led to the discovery and description of several new taxa of gigantic ancient aquatic reptiles (pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs), as well as crocodiles, turtles, and flying reptiles (pterosaurs). New species of turtle, Caribemys oxfordiensis, and plesiosaur, Vinalesaurus caroli, were recently discovered, as was a pterosaur that had a tail and soared in the prehistoric skies with a wingspan of nearly 4 meters (13 feet). 

The search for Jurassic fossils in Cuba is a joint project of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural of Cuba and the Museo de La Plata in Argentina, and is partially funded by the National Geographic Society. 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1220_021220_cubandino_2.html


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I tried and I'm drawing a blank... exactly what should it tell me that John Lennon is dead?


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Ancient fountains [edit]

Ancient civilizations built stone basins to capture and hold precious drinking water. A carved stone basin, dating to around 2000 BC, was discovered in the ruins of the ancient Sumerian city of Lagash in modern Iraq. The ancient Assyrians constructed a series of basins in the gorge of the Comel River, carved in solid rock, connected by small channels, descending to a stream. The lowest basin was decorated with carved reliefs of two lions.[4] The ancient Egyptians had ingenious systems for hoisting water up from the Nile for drinking and irrigation, but without a higher source of water it was not possible to make water flow by gravity, and no Egyptian fountains or pictures of fountains have been found.

The ancient Greeks were apparently the first to use aqueducts and gravity-powered fountains to distribute water. According to ancient historians, fountains existed in Athens, Corinth, and other ancient Greek cities in the 6th century BC as the terminating points of aqueducts which brought water from springs and rivers into the cities. In the 6th century BC the Athenian ruler Peisistratos built the main fountain of Athens, the Enneacrounos, in the Agora, or main square. It had nine large cannons, or spouts, which supplied drinking water to local residents.[5]

Greek fountains were made of stone or marble, with water flowing through bronze pipes and emerging from the mouth of a sculpted mask that represented the head of a lion or the muzzle of an animal. Most Greek fountains flowed by simple gravity, but they also discovered how to use principle of a siphon to make water spout, as seen in pictures on Greek vases.[6]

again somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


once again you're making false assumptions.
if, as you constantly yammer about ,the bible is a perfect book.  then there would be no inconsistencies with any description of anything written about in the bible.
now to cover your ass, you're attempting to say they didn't mean fountain as we know it.

btw you thinking ed was joking is more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


steer clear of nuts with guns that have a Jodi foster obsession?


----------



## Montrovant (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Spirituality is not the 'one thing' that makes us different from all other living things.  There are plenty of things humans do and think that are different from other living things.  More, not every person believes in the spiritual.  Does any other living thing conduct war?  Does any other living thing create arbitrary borders of nations?  Does any other species have complex language?  Does any other species have any of the millions of forms of technology humanity does?  Does any other living thing farm, or raise meat animals, or......there are too many things to count.

Again, you are taking one aspect of human intelligence and declaring it the single defining characteristic of our species, using belief in something untrue (the many varied religious, most of which must obviously be untrue) as evidence that something else must be true.

This is clearly pointless, and unlike the creationism thread, I'm not willing to hang around rehashing the same stuff for months and months.    Thanks for the argument though, have fun continuing it with others!


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You can't establish that spirituality is a product of nature with "because I say so." 

I see no evidence of spiritual connection being made by any other living thing in nature.


----------



## daws101 (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


since you see none but imagine one in humans. your claim has no basis in fact.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Spirituality is not the 'one thing' that makes us different from all other living things.
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You established spirituality is a PART of nature with "because I say so," so once established I can do it too. Who made YOU God?

Just because YOU refuse to accept spiritual evidence produced by nature does not mean it doesn't exist. You have closed your mind to spiritual evidence.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I wish you would stop spamming my thread. If you aren't going to offer anything constructive, just move on. You seem to just want to filibuster here, dominate the thread with rapid-fire nonsensical retorts and denigrations, with no real point to make. 

I don't imagine a spiritual connection in humans, the evidence shows a profound spiritual connection being made by humans, for as long as humans have existed. I keep being told that humans created spirituality, for whatever bogus reasons... but if I were here telling you that humans created oxygen so we could emerge from the ocean, you'd want me to show you some evidence to support that theory, wouldn't you?  I keep being told that my well-established argument, with valid points and everything, boils down to "because I say so" ...yet, I continue to see what amounts to "because I say so" with regard to your disbelief in spiritual nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I disagree because nature exists because of a spiritual being.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Why is it wrong to answer your own question ?


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



This is defined back on page 1, it was one of the first replies I made in the thread. Nothing I have said is confusing or equivocal, it's all explained very clearly. Spirituality is the connection humans have been making with spiritual nature for as long as we've existed. Nothing confusing or vague about that, it's pretty clear cut. 



edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No, it's a question. The opening paragraphs of the OP explain that we must first define what each of the words mean, because depending on how we define those words, the answer is going to be different. The only objective way to answer the question, is if we can agree on what the words of the question say, otherwise, we will never agree on the resulting answer.  There is nothing here that is dishonest or contradictory. 

What is quite dishonest, is how all of you supposed "free thinkers" seem to be displaying a pack mentality of ridiculing me and claiming I have been contradictory, vague, hypocritical, religious, baseless, anything you can think to throw at me, because you can't honestly address the OP.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Like.....  "Good Luck!"  That's what I give back when a Monkey hands me a "Have a _blessed_ day".


----------



## IrishTexanChick (May 30, 2013)

There is NO "God"...or anywhere pearly gated that you dream of ending up in.  We're rejects from another planet.


----------



## dblack (May 30, 2013)

I wanted to revisit the OP - as I came into this thread late and, though I hate to admit it - never really looked at the base claims in detail. 



Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?



Completely agree so far. Most of the meaningful things we bother thinking and talking about are non-physical. The problem comes when overlaying 'supernatural' onto this. There's no need for it. Non-physical entities fit fine into a naturalist world view. Arguably, the human mind exists as just such an entity. We may rely on a physical medium to persist, but we are, essentially, non-physical beings.



> As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual.



How does 'spiritual' differ from non-physical?



> ... in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence,  since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.



Still pretty much in agreement. There is the open question of what you mean by 'spiritual'. Is it a trojan horse for 'supernatural'?



> Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.



There's no disputing that religion has been an important factor in the development of human civilization. And it seems fair to call the common beliefs that comprise a religion as 'greater than self'.



> Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.



I'm not sure this is actually Darwin's claim. In any case, I don't think it holds up. There are plenty examples of apparent 'free riders' when it comes to inherited traits.



> So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!



I guess it does. But it seems to set aside the more vital question of the nature of gods. They certainly exist. But are they supernatural 'magical' entities, or are they subtle constructs of human society? Or something else?


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Looks like your side is trying to change their story on this issue.

The fossils of various frondlike and sacklike organisms that supposedly lived at the bottom of ancient oceans may actually represent some of the earliest organisms to dwell on land.

'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers - ScienceNOW

The Morrison formation has produced land and marine fossils.

Many different species of Jurassic-age dinosaurs have been unearthed from the Morrison Formation in the CYFO including: Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, and Stegosaurus. Quite often, theropod teeth have been found when exhuming sauropod bones. The Sundance Formation has also yielded fossils of numerous marine reptiles including Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus. 

Paleontology


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Don't have to the view is based in faith.


----------



## RoccoR (May 30, 2013)

_et al,_

There seems to be a conflict in definitions.

How does the spiritual fit the natural?  
What is the relationship, if any?

Is it fair to say that the "spiritual" is in the "supernatural" category.  

The natural is tangible and measurable.   It is quantifiable.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## BreezeWood (May 30, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Nobody knows what happens at death.  That's why it's called 'the unknown'.





Sorry to be rude Joe - but is there a sliding gradient for those that simply die not caring to those who know before they die their prospects - the combination for Spiritual Remission and life found in the Everlasting ?


----------



## S.J. (May 31, 2013)

IrishTexanChick said:


> There is NO "God"...or anywhere pearly gated that you dream of ending up in.  We're rejects from another planet.


Really?  What planet?


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 31, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody knows what happens at death.  That's why it's called 'the unknown'.
> ...


"What's that mean?"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jlUNrK9Kv4]Whats That Mean? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> There seems to be a conflict in definitions.
> 
> ...



Indeed, there is often a conflict of definitions when pondering this question. That is the primary reason the question never seems to be answered. Those who do not believe in a spiritual nature or spiritual existence, have no concept of the terms used. "Exist" can only mean a physical, measurable existence. "Proof" can only be things that adhere to the physical nature we can measure and observe. Then there is the biggie, the concept of "God" and what that means to the individual. 

Here, you have determined that "spiritual" is "supernatural" and every judgement you make from that point forward, is based on this precept. You view "natural" to mean that of physical nature alone, what we can physically observe, measure, or quantify. To even suggest that nature may also include a spiritual element, is beyond your ability to comprehend. Sorry if I am being presumptive, this is just generally the case, our minds are usually only open to what our preconceptions allow, regardless of how we may think otherwise. 

Spiritual nature is just as much a part of nature as physical nature, it's just not measurable or observable physically. Those who believe in spiritual nature, can make a very real and tangible connection to it, through meditation or prayer. Humans have been doing this as long as humans have existed. It is our most distinct and defining attribute, no other species has this capacity to connect spiritually to spiritual nature. 

Any scientific logic applied to this at all, says that our resounding success as a species, is related to this unique attribute which no other species possess. If there truly is nothing to spirituality and it's merely imagination or delusion which has persisted for all of our existence, it's a pretty amazing trick. There is no other such anomaly found in nature.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

> *dblack:* I wanted to revisit the OP - as I came into this thread late and, though I hate to admit it - never really looked at the base claims in detail.



Thank you to dblack, for at least reading the OP with an objective mind. You may not completely agree with my argument, but I feel like you have given me a fair shot, and I can respect that. 

In essence, the thread question is answered according to whether or not you accept spiritual nature. Those who refuse to acknowledge spiritual nature, can never find the proof they require to believe god exists, while those who do accept spiritual nature, have an abundance of spiritual evidence to support their belief.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > _et al,_
> ...



Bossi is spreading more horse manure. It is possible to physically measure people experiencing a "spiritual trance" induced via prayer or meditation. Once again your ignorance is on display.


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss has resumed  his *CIRCULAR REASONING* hole again. Now you are alleging that your imaginary deity "created" luck so every instance of someone being lucky is "evidence" that your imaginary deity exists.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Bossi is spreading more horse manure. It is possible to physically measure people experiencing a "spiritual trance" induced via prayer or meditation. Once again your ignorance is on display.



Look, jackass, you've pointed out that we can measure brain waves. I think most educated people understand we can now do this. It signifies the brain is working, thought is happening, and no doubt, if they ever hooked up your brain, the needle would be sucked off the bottom of the chart by be massive black hole of dark energy residing in your cranium. 

It's important to note, before we had the capability to measure brain activity, we did not have any physical way to verify or confirm what was happening inside a person's head. We *discovered* that, and before it was *discovered*, it wasn't known. If this concept of discovery and knowledge applies to brain waves, why can't it also apply to spiritual nature? Perhaps we simply haven't learned how to measure spiritual nature physically, just as there was once a time we couldn't measure brain activity? Were brain waves happening before we discovered how to measure them? Of course they were, and it would have been foolish and closed minded to have concluded there was no such thing, in fact, we may have never discovered how to measure brain waves if we refused to believe they existed.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.


----------



## hobelim (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.




Right, people heard thunder and imagined angels bowling in heaven. Two people were walking in the jungle, one was eaten by a lion and the other lived to tell his tale of being favored by God and angelic beings protecting him from danger only to die another day.

I'm convinced.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> In essence, the thread question is answered according to whether or not you accept spiritual nature. Those who refuse to acknowledge spiritual nature, can never find the proof they require to believe god exists, while those who do accept spiritual nature, have an abundance of spiritual evidence to support their belief.



Right. I've gathered that much. And I can't answer such a question without a more complete definition of 'spiritual nature'. It seems likely you've been around this shed somewhere in the midst of these 2000 or so posts, so I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself. I was hoping you'd address my question regarding the distinctions among the related concepts of 'non-physical', 'spiritual' and 'supernatural'.

I can accept that man has a non-physical, 'spiritual' nature. But the concept of supernatural is incoherent. Either something is real, or it's not. As I've stated, I believe gods are real, non-physical entities (just as human minds are real, non-physical entities), but they aren't magical in nature. They're subtle, and quite powerful, constructs of human society that we are only beginning to understand.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.
> ...



Cute response, but I don't believe you are convinced. I believe you are one of the shit stains who rejects spiritual nature and doesn't accept spiritual evidence, and you are trying to be snarky. Let's clarify once again, you are never going to be convinced, there is nothing that can ever convince you. I can tell you about spiritual evidence all day long, and you will continue to reject it because you don't believe it is real. Until you can find it in yourself to accept spiritual nature, I can't help you, and the question in the OP remains unanswered. 

It's sad to watch this, really, because what this massive thread proves, is even those who have chosen to reject spirituality, want an answer to the question. You can never find that answer because your mind is closed to the only real evidence which can apply. So you are perpetually frustrated that other people don't seem to share your disbelief, and have seemingly found the answer to the question. This manifests itself into 2000+ post threads, full of snarky denigration and sarcastic retorts, from people just like yourself.


----------



## hobelim (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...






LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.


You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.


And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



but Yet this is what takes place every day when pupils hurry in to their classrooms not aware that their professor spent most of his youth getting high because he thought it was cool. That might answer why so many vivid imaginations are found in the colleges.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In essence, the thread question is answered according to whether or not you accept spiritual nature. Those who refuse to acknowledge spiritual nature, can never find the proof they require to believe god exists, while those who do accept spiritual nature, have an abundance of spiritual evidence to support their belief.
> ...



I really do appreciate your candor and willingness to intelligently discuss this topic like a mature adult. I want to again commend you on the effort, it is certainly appreciated in light of what we've been getting from others here. At least you are willing to open your mind to some possibility, and that is all anyone can ask in a debate of this magnitude. 

I am going to take the liberty of giving my personal interpretations here, I am not claiming this to be empirical, it's simply where my personal viewpoints rest. I think spiritual nature is an unseen energy or presence of spirit that we can't detect with physics at this time. It is there, just as the material world around us is there. It is part of reality, just as physical presence is part of reality, it just can't be verified or confirmed physically, because it isn't physical in nature. I don't believe this qualifies it as "supernatural" because it is a fundamental part of nature. In fact, it was pointed out earlier, the actual condition we recognize as "life" is spiritual. Everything in the universe is comprised of common elements, they are arranged by humans on the Periodic Table. What makes particular combinations of these elements "organic" rather than "inorganic" is spiritual nature. Certain elements come together and their atoms react with one another to create what is known as "electricity" and the force which makes this 'reality' is spiritual nature. Everything that is a predictable law of physics or science, is the result of spiritual energy. We can explain HOW something happens with physical science, we can't explain WHY it happens.

Black holes were mentioned earlier, and it's interesting because the phenomenon is not predicted by physics. We believed that physics applied everywhere in our universe, that it was consistent and...well...universal. But then we discovered black holes, dark energy, antimatter, wormholes. We're not sure what the heck these things are, because they simply defy what we previously understood and thought. It is causing us to have to literally  reevaluate the universe and what we know about it. 

Now think about this for a hot second... Let's imagine that 60 years ago, long before science knew anything about black holes, some 'prophet' began speaking of this 'message from god' he had received, and god had revealed to him, the universe has a hole in it, where even light could not escape... what would have been the response from the science community to this? Oh, that's absolute nonsense! We would have been bombarded with physics and science showing that such a thing was just not possible. The closed-minded would have mocked and ridiculed the prophet, and demanded some kind of "proof" for his insane claims. Of course, all the prophet has is spiritual evidence, so it would have been dismissed by those who reject spiritual evidence. 

I think we have to be extremely careful drawing assumptive conclusions regarding physical sciences. As we've seen throughout the history of science, it is not always correct or complete. In fact, the very nature of scientific method, continues to ask questions, it does not conclude things. I do not know that we will never make a physical discovery of spiritual energy, but the logic dichotomy comes into play if we ever do, because it would immediately cease to be "spiritual" if proven by physical evidence. Perhaps, in that case, we would still refer to it as "spiritual" out of habit, or distinction? 

I want to tackle one more thing here... you used the word "magical" when you spoke of god previously. What do you mean by "magic?" As most of us are aware, there is really not a such thing as true "magic" and what we perceive as such, is merely an illusion. How it is presented, may be a complete mystery, but there is always a logical and rational explanation, the magician does not have supernatural powers. When I examine the numerous theories of abiogenesis, it seems quite "magical" to me. 

It reminds me of when I was a kid, and we vacationed in Florida. We would buy these things called "Sea Monkeys" at the novelty store. It was a dry packet of crystals you mixed with water, and in a few days, you were supposed to have mystical and fascinating sea monkeys, doing tricks and acrobatics, right before your very eyes! Well the "magic" was, these were dehydrated brine shrimp, when hydrated, they began growing. Mine never did tricks or look like the ones on the packet, I was very disappointed. 

I resurrected this memory because when I think of all the amazing miracles of life around us, I can't imagine it resulting from a single-cell organism, and it reminds me of Sea Monkeys. To me, it is much more plausible to think life emerged through spiritual energy, much the same as electricity, gravity, and principles of physics. This belief does not mean that I have a religious concept of a god who is jealous or angry, who requires praise and worship, who punishes sin or whatever. That is a theological concept that may or may not be correct, in my opinion. I am not here to address the possibility of such a deity, I don't know that such a god exists, even in a spiritual sense. Still, I think there is a guiding spiritual force in our universe, and humans have the ability to connect with it, which is the "magic" behind humans and humanity.


----------



## hobelim (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





LOL...What the?

You have something against vivid imaginations in colleges?


The problem is *unrestrained* imaginations in the churches who teach adults that what amount to children's fairy tales are the literal historical truth.


That's when a person who allows falsehood to enter their thought process and color their perceptions risks losing their rational mind...... and once they have lost it with what can they get it back?


Do you believe that God diddled a virgin to father himself to become fully human without a human father because he loved the world so much?

Do you get all teary eyed and sentimental when you imagine God wearing diapers on Christmas morn?


If you can answer yes to any of the above I suggest you smoke a joint, relax,  and try to be rational.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

hobelim said:


> LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.
> 
> You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.
> 
> And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.



Let the record show, once again, we have someone making the allegation that the OP argument has been refuted, when that is not the case. You will note, there is no example given, no refuting point raised, just more "profound" opinion from someone who rejects spiritual evidence. 

And for the record, I have never asked anyone to set aside their rational mind, I want you to USE your rational mind, not CLOSE it to possibility. It is actually YOU who wants to reject rationality and close your mind to spiritual nature. Throughout this thread, people just like you, have abandoned logic and rationality, in order to cling to their disbelief. They maintain that mankind has deluded himself into believing a figment of their imagination is real, because man needed answers to questions that no other living thing seems to be bothered by, and to comfort fears of death that no other species of life seems to be aware of, and this quirky and 'unnecessary' attribute has persisted in the species for all of it's existence, and remains the most defining characteristic of the species...even though, there is no other natural example of this. To dismiss this very real human behavioral trait as superficial and meaningless, is contradictory to even the very science espoused by Darwin and others. 

I'm sorry, your weak little chortles have not refuted my argument in the least.


----------



## hobelim (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.
> ...





LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.

I'm sure you get off on screwing with peoples minds but it seems that you have only succeeded in screwing your own.

congratulations!


----------



## Derideo_Te (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.
> ...



Once again* IRRATIONAL* Boss is in a state of *ABJECT DENIAL.* A rational person rejects the concept of being told that imaginary things are "real" because some clown on a message board who can't keep his own story straight says so. You have denied anything to do with religion while using it whenever it suits your purpose. You have denied your God while using him whenever it was convenient to do so. You have erroneously alleged that there is no way to measure "spirituality" and then backpedaled when it was demonstrated that it can be measured. You have alleged that Darwin "supports" your drivel only to be exposed as someone who doesn't understand evolution. You have flipflopped on every single point so many times that even you don't know which side you are on any more. What is most amusing of all is that you have no clue just how ignorant you appear.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I am very rational and that is why I have the views that I have. I tried your side of the fence for too many years and then I grew up.

It took one human to get us in this mess and one to get us out so yes.

No on the second.

You act as many of the atheists and your disdain for the believer is noted.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you do realize that you're proving my point for me.
all of what you've posted refutes both your great flood and young earth myths.
as to trying to change meanings that what you do, and badly I might add.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 since faith proves nothing but faith ,your view is imaginary and false


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


a vividly false assumption.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what do you call it when a poster famous for irrationalism, claims to be rational?


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

hobelim said:


> LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.
> 
> I'm sure you get off on screwing with peoples minds but it seems that you have only succeeded in screwing your own.
> 
> congratulations!



The argument presented is nothing at all like Peter Pan or neverland. It is based on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, you simply reject the spiritual evidence and dismiss the physical evidence. I'm sorry you have chosen to be closed-minded, but I can't do anything about that. I can show you how your conjectures are flawed and illogical, but it doesn't matter to you, the only objective you have is to continue disbelief. 

Congratulate yourself, you once again, successfully denied your own spirituality. Most humans aren't able to do this, they eventually surrender to spirituality, and through it, have the capacity to do remarkable things. If you keep it up, perhaps you can relegate yourself back down to the level of other upper primates, whom you share similar DNA with? Swinging in trees and eating bananas all day is more your speed anyway.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.
> ...


what amazing about this thread is boss made his point in the first post, everything he's posted after that is unnecessary reiteration  .
this must be the net version of loving the sound of your own voice.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...




*Nobody knows what happens at death.*

- one good sign is you stop breathing ....


also that is because they have not reached the Apex for the Knowledge of Life - and with the correct conclusion may persist beyond their last breath, Joe - instead of dying ... the Knowledge before death as being earned rather than the allure of "chance" others, exp Christians seem to be relying on.


* but really Joe, what is of most interest is how to lose that god-auful color that shows up on the post name title - yours is an nice blue - how about sharing the secret ?


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Once again* IRRATIONAL* Boss is in a state of *ABJECT DENIAL.* A rational person rejects the concept of being told that imaginary things are "real" because some clown on a message board who can't keep his own story straight says so. You have denied anything to do with religion while using it whenever it suits your purpose. You have denied your God while using him whenever it was convenient to do so. You have erroneously alleged that there is no way to measure "spirituality" and then backpedaled when it was demonstrated that it can be measured. You have alleged that Darwin "supports" your drivel only to be exposed as someone who doesn't understand evolution. You have flipflopped on every single point so many times that even you don't know which side you are on any more. What is most amusing of all is that you have no clue just how ignorant you appear.



There is nothing imaginary about spiritualism, it has existed as long as humans have. Because you continue to repeat that it isn't real and you don't believe in it, doesn't mean a thing to me. If you could offer any evidence or even logic, to support your opinion, it might be different, but you can't. All you can do is continue to try and spin this into a religious argument, because you just love to bash religion. It pisses you off that I won't let you do this, so you have taken to accusing me of covertly prosthelytizing, as well as not being consistent. I have not flip-flopped on anything, you have misconstrued or misinterpreted things, which I have clarified, and you have decided these are flip-flops. 

You have not shown a way to measure spirituality. You have pointed out that science can measure brain activity, and that's it. But you continue to repeat this as if science can look into our heads and see us making a spiritual connection or imagining a giant angry pink unicorn in the sky. I think you honestly believe science can do this, and you've decided to hang your hat on that, and pound this point home. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't disprove existence of a spiritual entity, or refute the OP argument in any way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 Daws grow a brain repeating things you post is not helping you make your point I am refuting your comment that there was no such evidence it was made up by creationists.
Now answer the question how dry land fossils are found buried in the same strata as marine fossils  but 7 layers of strata and its found on every continent.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




YWC finally tell the truth " there was no such evidence it was made up by creationists."-YWC

You heard it here first!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method.

What is the first step in the scientific method ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Nope I saw it personally I know you have never stepped foot in a college class Mr. wiki man.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



False premise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The Morrison formation has produced land and marine fossils in the same strata. Why is your side so quiet concerning the evidence ?

You don't trust the biologists for the BLM ?


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 only in your vivid imagination.
you just keep grasping at those false straws.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes, yours is ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you have never stepped foot in a college class room that is what I figured.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 31, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.
> ...



So... what we have here isn't any _specific_ God being promoted, it's possibilities.

  I suppose it's *possible* that Monkey software continues on after Monkey hardware malfunctions beyond repair...

To Unknown Possibilities!


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Dummy take it up with the biologists of the BLM


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

Daws you really have nothing to say even when you copy and paste.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Bump!


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


none of what you posted is evidence of a great flood, the articles I posted prove that land and marine fossils found together are very common in shallow water environments..
your great flood masturbation fantasy does not and cannot explain why strata formed millions of years apart have different species of land and marine fossils imbedded in them.
by your fantasy all the fossils should be the same age .
they are not.
that in and of its self  refutes you bullshit.
proving YWC'S Willful ignorance and misrepresenting of fact one post at a time.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as always you figggerd wrong.
I'm not gonna play this silly game with you.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


what hubris bumping you own thread or did you skip your meds today.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You consider 9,000 ft above sea level as shallow water environments 

You consider 29,000 in the Himilayas as shallow water environments ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What is an idea ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You kept avoiding the post why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh and I hate to tell you but your graph is not accurate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you were lying when you said the geologist in those videos and creationists made the evidence up ?


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


if that's not the all time imbecilic statement you've ever made it's in the  top two. bahahahahahahahah!

you really "believe" that the Himalayas were always as high as they are now?
the same goes for your other moronic claim.
I get the impression you think you've made some world shattering point.
we'll you have.
you just proven beyond doubt that you're a complete fucking buffoon.
I would refute your "facts" but you have none.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Hehehe with egg on your face,Colorado is considered shallow water environments ?

I love it when you step in it slapdick.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


already answered on the other post.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How high were they genius ? evidence please ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well answer it here since you copied and pasted this nonsense there as well.

Let's keep it in one thread.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! I said nothing about any credible geologists I did say the shit in those creationist clips was just that, shit. 
so no I did not lie.
but you are lying now by saying I did.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The guy in the video is a geologist. You said the evidence was made up by the creationists and you were just proven wrong nitwit.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ok I looked in the other thread you're a complete moron. The term you're looking for is Hypotheses. You must gather data and observe data before you can test the hypotheses.

 give up this Charade clown.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


are you really this stupid? Colorado has not always been at 9000ft the fossils prove that. or do you believe that there was a marine environment at that elevation? or did god put them there just to fuck with us.
if you're thinking they were deposited there by the imaginary great flood.
your still wrong. if the "flood got that high the only things that should be deposited there would be things that float.
   most marine animals  like the ones found in those deposits are either bottom dwellers or attached to the sea floor.
did you ever notice there are very few or no fish fossils in those deposits.
why? ...because fish had not evolved yet.
so if anybody has egg on their face it's you ,caused by the nonsensical shit you spew out of your mouth.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


how high is the average sea floor.?


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ahh no like I said: " I said nothing about any credible geologists"
if he appeared in those creationist comedies he is not credible.
so as always you 're talking out your ass.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm guessing it's not above sea level 

You are the one that made the claim now answer my questions.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another false assumption.
you ask what an idea was: Idea


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


, the term idea has been used to cover a range of concepts. Ideas are often construed as mental representational images; i.e., images of some object. In other contexts, ideas are taken to be concepts, although abstract concepts do not necessarily appear as images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflex, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place.

the answer you wanted was belief 
be·lief

 [ bi l&#63484;f ]   

1.acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
2.trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
3.something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true.
 the two are not the same..
so again the moron is you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you're discrediting universities for presenting a diploma to the man because he does not subscribe to your Ideology ?

You one stupid cookie and it was revealed here again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You posted a graph about the scientific method dumbshit. Sorry but the cat is out of the bag sorry you chose a poor graph to make a point but if you really had 6 years of biology you would have known that you funny guy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (May 31, 2013)

Well daws hate to run I would love to continue destroying you but I have better things to do.

See ya loser.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> What is an idea ?


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I just did.
you're kinda slow on the uptake.
since those fossils cannot be formed anywhere except under water and only between the surface and a certain depth. and liquid water for the most part is found in the lowest places on the earths surface. it's obvious that they could not have formed on dry land mountains, so other then fictional supernatural intervention the only logical conclusion is plate tectonics .
you did know that the Rockies are where the continental plate and the pacific plate meet that's why they're mountains.
got it or do I have to explain 6th grade science to you?
what were once seabed's were forced upwards by the plates grinding into each other


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > What is an idea ?


that's what I said!


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no once again your falsely assuming.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


classic dodge behavior.


----------



## daws101 (May 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Well daws hate to run I would love to continue destroying you but I have better things to do.
> 
> See ya loser.


what a vivid imagination..


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 31, 2013)

*"Enough!"*


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 1, 2013)

*Back to the topic of Spiritual Possibilities.....





Carry on.  *


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Bossi is spreading more horse manure. It is possible to physically measure people experiencing a "spiritual trance" induced via prayer or meditation. Once again your ignorance is on display.
> ...



Notice how Boss always uses crude language whenever his ignorance is exposed. Then he backpedals like crazy after deliberately removing the statement where he was just caught lying. Boss is as transparent as plastic wrap, just as thinskinned and equally as shallow. His religious agenda is obvious to all even though he insists upon denying it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2013)

> *Derideo_Te:* Notice how Boss always uses crude language whenever his ignorance is exposed.



only the crude language - frustration over boredom is not an excuse.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 1, 2013)

*Here's a hint boys and girls... If the post you're about to submit is all about another member and says little about the topic at hand, it's probably a troll post.

Let's get back to discussing spiritual possibilities instead of each other, shall we?*


----------



## daws101 (Jun 1, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> *Here's a hint boys and girls... If the post you're about to submit is all about another member and says little about the topic at hand, it's probably a troll post.
> 
> Let's get back to discussing spiritual possibilities instead of each other, shall we?*


ok, but it still begs the question what is spirituality?


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Notice how Boss always uses crude language whenever his ignorance is exposed. Then he backpedals like crazy after deliberately removing the statement where he was just caught lying. Boss is as transparent as plastic wrap, just as thinskinned and equally as shallow. His religious agenda is obvious to all even though he insists upon denying it.



I didn't remove any statement, haven't backpedalled and I haven't lied. I don't have a religious agenda, I have repeatedly said this is not a theological debate. Also, "jackass" is not "crude language," it is an appropriate descriptor in your case. Now, why don't you follow the Mod's advice, and get back on topic?


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> ok, but it still begs the question what is spirituality?



That has been answered numerous times.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2013)

why would anyone ascribe Spirituality as exclusive to mankind when obviously it is consistent with all life forms - feather / fur coloration as an example.


----------



## dblack (Jun 1, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> why would anyone ascribe Spirituality as exclusive to mankind when obviously it is consistent with all life forms - feather / fur coloration as an example.



Guess it would depend on how you define it. - consensus on that eludes us. Maybe the assumption is that spirituality demands a certain level of sophistication from the minds and community supporting it


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ok, but it still begs the question what is spirituality?
> ...



If that were true, this thread would be short, and it would start sans the big shiny *?*.

And yet it's true.  

"Is there such a thing as a spiritual realm?"   "What happens at death?" 
  "Is God possible?!?"​
These questions have been answered.

Over and over and over and over and over again in this thread alone.


2,000 + years of bloody discussion and *PROOF* still eludes the Monkeys...


 To Life after Death Possibilities!  ​  To the Sentient Monkey life that we know of, which makes it all possible!


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > why would anyone ascribe Spirituality as exclusive to mankind when obviously it is consistent with all life forms - feather / fur coloration as an example.
> ...







> > Quote: Originally Posted by *daws101*
> > ok, but it still begs the question what is spirituality?
> 
> 
> ...




not Boss but Spirituality is the directed functions of Physiology - Heart beat is manual, building a Pyramid is Spirituality ... found in all living beings.

why it would not be recognized by Atheist as being objectionable makes little sense - ie Boss's response to 101.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well, the thread would be short if we eliminated all the superfluous commentary, denigration of religion, insults and adhoms toward the thread author, and attempts to derail the topic. 

We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it. 

Proof is whatever an individual acknowledges as proof, it is entirely subjective. Those who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, can find no proof... ever. While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof. So it becomes a matter of perception, and the answer is dependent upon whether you accept spiritual evidence. Logic dictates, if we are trying to prove a spiritual entity, we must examine spiritual evidence, just the same as proving a physical entity with physical evidence. But someone who rejects spiritual evidence is the same as someone who rejects physical evidence, trying to prove something physical, it is futile, the mind is closed to that possibility.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Exactly!  We're not 'monkeys', we're 'Monkeys'!

And the difference between monkeys and Monkeys is Spiritual Possibilities.  Ain't it beautiful?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 1, 2013)

Actually, the true beauty for us is also the true terror.  No matter what any Monkey tells you... the unknown is called the UNknown for a reason.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"While those who are able to accept spiritual nature, will argue there is overwhelming proof" is just utter nonsense. Spirituality exists because it is a state of mind that can be physically measured and anyone can train their mind to reach this state. Simply because spirituality exists does NOT mean that it is "overwhelming proof" of anything* BUT* a state of mind. It is completely fallacious to presume that those who reject your bogus "spiritual evidence" are rejecting the factual, provable physical reality of spirituality. So your entire premise is based upon *YOUR* erroneous* ASSUMPTION* that there is a "*black & white divide over spirituality*" itself. 

Furthermore your  *ASSUMPTION* that only humankind has any "spirituality" is unproven. Elephants visit the bones of their dead and are obviously making a "connection" of some sort. A pride of lions was filmed paying their last respects to a deceased family member. Endless examples of family pets mourning the loss of their owners and/or other pets abound. Simply because they don't go around preaching and singing hymns and conducting elaborate burial routines does not mean that they are bereft of all spirituality. It is simply* arrogance* on your behalf to* ASSUME* that *only* mankind has this imaginary "spiritual connection". There is plenty of what *YOU* term "*spiritual evidence*" to indicate that spirituality exists in the animal kingdom.  Of course none of them have ever heard of religion or gods or any other superstitious nonsense. Instead they simply go about their lives killing or being killed as the case may be without "worshiping" any imaginary "creator". 

Animals demonstrate emotions of anger, love, affection, etc and have the means to communicate amongst themselves using more highly tuned senses like smell. Under your inane misunderstanding of Darwin mankind should no longer have any sense of smell at all since it is no longer vital to our survival and yet it still persists. The spiritual state of mind serves a purpose to enable us to handle events such as the loss of someone near and dear. That it has been perverted by religion to control people like you does not mean that it is "evidence" of anything else. Your reproductive instincts have been perverted by advertisers to sell you vehicles.  

*To summarize*; spirituality exists, can be physically measured and serves a useful purpose in allowing us to cope with traumatic events in our lives. It is *NOT* evidence of anything imaginary no matter how much self deception is employed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2013)

Politico said:


> No.



And there we have the summation of rational argument against the existence of God.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The behavior of animals is difficult to use as demonstrations of anything since we do not know what they are thinking. Is the elephant going to the bones of dead elephants in respect of the dead or to get resources located at the place the elephant happened to die, but we project a human motivation not understanding what they gain being at that place? Are the lions mourning their dead or verifying in a simple way if the lion is still unresponsive?

Anthropomorphism is something that spiritualists seem to ignore when making their observations of human like behavior among animals.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Actually, the true beauty for us is also the true terror.  No matter what any Monkey tells you... the unknown is called the UNknown for a reason.



But there are different kinds of unknowns. 

Some unknowns are known categorically, such as how many miles are there between Miami and the location of the next meteorite landing.  

Some unknowns are not even known categorically, such as what possible events might disrupt the construction of a new, never been done before, machine. As an engineer, I can assure you that no process is ever executed exactly according to plan.

Some unknowns are unknown personally though it may be known by others, like lookup information you haven't looked up yet, or a set of experiences you have not yet experienced and so cannot conceive of what some specific experience really is because it is completely unknown to you.

Some unknowns are unknown only because our technology and/or conceptions of the universe are not adequate to understand them, like radio waves were unknown to the 18th century sciences. Radio waves still existed but no one was yet able to perceive them due to lack of ability.

So if the existence of God is an unknown to you, perhaps a more relevant question is 'Why is this an unknown?' Is it unknown because you don't have the ability to perceive God while others may, or is it because you haven't bothered to look into the matter? The latter describes most of the agnostics I personally know; it simply doesn't bother them one way or the other and the whole subject is tldr, lol.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 2, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are correct in that we don't know exactly what they are thinking and that we tend to anthropomorphize animal behavior. What we know for facts are that mammals share common behavior patterns such as child rearing. A mother will protect it's child regardless as to whether it is a bear or a human. The emotional bonds that exist between humans are the same as those in other animals probably because they stem from the same survival impulses.

NATURE . Unforgettable Elephants . Elephant Emotions | PBS

Animals and Human Experience the Same Emotions

How Animal and Human Emotions Are Different | Animal Emotions & Human Feelings | Human Brain | LiveScience


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



But I think there are additional factors such as language and religion that reinforce instinctive evolved behavior, like what a mammal may have for its offspring, or restrain it as language and religion allow us to do today in regard to things such as violent behavior, racism, etc.

From the first generation of human beings that could pass on learned concepts through the media of spoken language, evolution has been more cultural and conceptual among human beings than mere evolved instinct.

If we have an animal capable of speaking complex sentences I think we are speaking of a 'human being' no matter what the genetics may be, but to my knowledge that is only homo sapiens,  though that may very well change sometime in the future.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 2, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



In essence we are discussing how sentience is influencing evolution. As a life form humankind is terraforming the entire planet in ways that no species since the stromatolites have done. (The Carboniferous period was done by many plant species.) A lot of this is having a negative impact on ecological systems that we (and other species) need to survive. 

But to get back to your point about complex sentences. Chimpanzees that have been taught sign language show sentience. Elephants taught to paint show sentience. As you pointed out the ability to pass on "learned concepts through the media of spoken language" is the prime differentiator. We have evolved that ability to where we are capable of having a discussion even though neither of us are within "speaking range".

Religion probably played a role in this "evolution" and it may well have served it's purpose and be superceeded by more evolved thought. Certainly there is a move towards a more enlightened future as the internet provides everyone with a shared platform to communicate as equals.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



No, it's just a matter of fact. 



> Spirituality exists because it is a state of mind that can be physically measured and anyone can train their mind to reach this state. Simply because spirituality exists does NOT mean that it is "overwhelming proof" of anything* BUT* a state of mind. It is completely fallacious to presume that those who reject your bogus "spiritual evidence" are rejecting the factual, provable physical reality of spirituality. So your entire premise is based upon *YOUR* erroneous* ASSUMPTION* that there is a "*black & white divide over spirituality*" itself.



Spirituality is not a state of mind, and it does not matter how many times you erroneously claim it is. The fact is, it only exists in humans and has exited in humans as long as we've been humans. Now you say, just because it exists, doesn't mean there is anything to it, but I disagree. There is no other behavior in nature, which exists as figment of imagination. If there were nothing to it, the attribute would have been discarded long ago. It certainly wouldn't be our most distinctly defining attribute as a species. So you have absolutely no scientific basis to conclude spirituality is merely a state of mind. 

Let's be perfectly clear, "spirituality" most certainly exists, and has been the most defining attribute of our species as long as man has existed. This is not disputable. There are those who accept spiritual nature and those who reject spiritual nature, but spirituality has always existed. 



> Furthermore your  *ASSUMPTION* that only humankind has any "spirituality" is unproven. Elephants visit the bones of their dead and are obviously making a "connection" of some sort. A pride of lions was filmed paying their last respects to a deceased family member. Endless examples of family pets mourning the loss of their owners and/or other pets abound. Simply because they don't go around preaching and singing hymns and conducting elaborate burial routines does not mean that they are bereft of all spirituality.



Even ATHEISTS and NIHILISTS mourn death! This is NOT spirituality. Other forms of life do not spiritually worship something greater than self, they have no such awareness. This is why humans are different, and why we aren't swinging in trees and eating bananas, like other upper primates. I will say, it is indeed interesting you are now trying to argue that other animals may believe in god, to prove that god isn't real and doesn't exist, that's pretty freaking amazing. 



> It is simply* arrogance* on your behalf to* ASSUME* that *only* mankind has this imaginary "spiritual connection". There is plenty of what *YOU* term "*spiritual evidence*" to indicate that spirituality exists in the animal kingdom.  Of course none of them have ever heard of religion or gods or any other superstitious nonsense. Instead they simply go about their lives killing or being killed as the case may be without "worshiping" any imaginary "creator".



Well which one is it, Darwin, do other animals have this attribute of worshiping spiritually or not? When I can go to the zoo on Sunday and see the other upper primates congregating to pray, I'll believe that they have the capacity to be spiritual. The examples you are mistaking for animal spirituality, are instinctual behaviors, many of which could certainly be guided by spiritual forces beyond your comprehension. Again, it is quite peculiar, you have now decided to prove other animals recognize spiritual nature, in order to prove spiritual nature is bogus. Quite bizarre, indeed! 



> Animals demonstrate emotions of anger, love, affection, etc and have the means to communicate amongst themselves using more highly tuned senses like smell.



No argument here. Other animals still do not spiritually worship. 



> Under your inane misunderstanding of Darwin mankind should no longer have any sense of smell at all since it is no longer vital to our survival and yet it still persists.



Heh? When have I said anything of the sort? And why do you believe our sense of smell isn't important to the species? I've never made any claims about "vital to survival" with regard to attributes we retain, and neither did Darwin. The theory is, animals discard unnecessary behaviors that serve no purpose. If spirituality were pure imagination, we would have abandoned it tens of thousands of years ago. 



> The spiritual state of mind serves a purpose to enable us to handle events such as the loss of someone near and dear. That it has been perverted by religion to control people like you does not mean that it is "evidence" of anything else. Your reproductive instincts have been perverted by advertisers to sell you vehicles.



This is your opinion, but there is no basis for it. Why do other life forms not need a security blanket to comfort them when loved ones die? Why do other life forms not need a placebo for knowledge they are missing? All of the supposed reasons you assume spirituality exists, are the RESULT of our spirituality. It is because we ARE spiritually connected, that we worry about what happens to us when we leave this physical world. 



> *To summarize*; spirituality exists, can be physically measured and serves a useful purpose in allowing us to cope with traumatic events in our lives. It is *NOT* evidence of anything imaginary no matter how much self deception is employed.



The fact that it exists, and has always been present in humans, and defines us as special among all other species, and is fundamental to our species in a profound way, is certainly not evidence it is the product of imagination or delusion. Especially when you can find no other such example in nature. You're absolutely correct, it simply can't be evidence of something imaginary.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult.* YOU* might personally and arrogantly define yourself by *YOUR OPINION* as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult.* YOU* might personally and arrogantly define yourself by *YOUR OPINION* as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!



Because I pointed out that spirituality is what distinguishes us from all other living things? 

My mind is open to everything, I have not closed my mind to any possibility here. You repeatedly seem to want to return to the religion well, and I think it's because you are angry at religion, which is your basis for rejecting spiritual nature. This is very common, and I completely understand, religion is very often contradictory (imo) to spiritual nature. While religions are indeed strong evidence that man does make some kind of spiritual connection, it's also evidence of man's arrogance and hubris. I think it is simply man's attempt to comprehend and understand something beyond their ability to comprehend. 

As flawed as organized religion may be, it doesn't disprove spiritual nature. If anything, it reinforces that a real spiritual connection is being made by humans. Even as you vehemently argue against spiritual nature and insist it is imagination run wild, you acknowledge that it is indeed fundamental to the species and present for a reason. To me, this is a very important distinction and piece of vital physical evidence. 

While discussing the human psyche, a noted psychologist once said, "If god didn't exist, man would have to create him." His point was, mankind is intrinsically tied to the belief in a power greater than self, we are hard wired this way, it is our natural state. We could not be what we are, without spiritual belief in something greater than self. I can't accept this is delusional or imaginary, or that humans can simply abandon spirituality any more than humans can abandon philosophy. It will always exist in some form, and most humans will practice it, and you can fight this little "war on religion" until you are worm food, it won't make a bit if difference regarding human spirituality, and the very REAL connection humans are making with spiritual nature.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2013)

> *Boss:* Other forms of life do not spiritually worship something greater than self, they have no such awareness.




- your statement above does not negate Spirituality, just your understanding of it. 


most other creatures communicate visually and do so prolifically and use the same means in demonstrating an awareness greater than theirselves - 

and "worshiping" as observed by the other creatures of mankind's behavior is undoubtedly interpreted by them as a regression of fear.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Once again you demonstrate why you are nothing but a time suck. You are incapable of learning or reasoning because your mind is slammed shut against anything and everything that doesn't fit within your limited religious belief cult.* YOU* might personally and arrogantly define yourself by *YOUR OPINION* as to what constitutes 'spirituality" but the rest of the world prefers to deal with REALITY and FACTS instead. Have a nice day!
> ...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 2, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the true beauty for us is also the true terror.  No matter what any Monkey tells you... the unknown is called the UNknown for a reason.
> ...



Turn the tables, Brother... How can you be so fucking cock-sure?

The ancient stories?  Give me a break!



I'll stand by what I said.  Any Monkey who tells you he KNOWS what happens at death is the Monkey deceived.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...



On the other hand, the only argument for the existence of the currently configured Judeo-Christian gods amount to "I read it in a book". Obviously, the Judeo-Christian gods are only one configuration of gawds.

Unfortunately, these religious perspectives, human configurations of gawds, books of gawds, tales of gawds, etc., have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants (Gregorian and otherwise), magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 2, 2013)

You forgot Rastafarian.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yXRGdZdonM]Bob Marley - Redemption Song - YouTube[/ame]


And you're absolutely right about the funny hats.  It's scary.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Are you serious? Ever read Aristotle? Aquinas? 

The 19th century debate between theists and  atheists regarding the age of the universe was finite duration from a creation event vrs an infinitely aged universe from the steady state theory. Guess who won that debate? Guess who wrote the Cosmic Egg theory that we now call the Big Bang? Yeah, a Christian priest.

Your ignorance of these things is proof of nothing other than your ignorance.



Hollie said:


> Unfortunately, these religious perspectives, human configurations of gawds, books of gawds, tales of gawds, etc., have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants (Gregorian and otherwise), magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!



So you disbelieve charicature of the gods? 

Great. Way to go. I don't think anyone else believes that nonsense either.

So what you are saying is that you disbelieve something that appears to only be a straw man conception of your own mind and that of other uninformed atheists.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > And there we have the summation of rational argument against the existence of God.
> ...





> Are you serious? Ever read Aristotle? Aquinas?
> 
> The 19th century debate between theists and  atheists regarding the age of the universe was finite duration from a creation event vrs an infinitely aged universe from the steady state theory. Guess who won that debate? Guess who wrote the Cosmic Egg theory that we now call the Big Bang? Yeah, a Christian priest.
> 
> Your ignorance of these things is proof of nothing other than your ignorance.


Are you serious? Have you ever studied a science text? How about a history text? 
It seems you&#8217;re unable to confront the fact that religious institutions (christianity being an example), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that&#8217;s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

The various bibles, as a holy books, are fine with that limitation. As science texts, however, they are indefensible. The key is in their interpretation, which in the realm of science, should best be undertaken by scientists. Religious studies do not preclude scientific studies. Nor is the converse precluded. But they are separate realms, with separate goals and separate methods. It is a rare being who can work well on both levels, and the best minds in each discipline do not try to bridge the divide. 

I do not seek spiritual enlightenment in Darwin's "Origin of Species." Nor do I seek observation, hypothesis and experiment in any of the bibles. 

While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers. 

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone. 

Your ignorance of your own ignorance is no excuse for such pointless argumentation.





Hollie said:


> Unfortunately, these religious perspectives, human configurations of gawds, books of gawds, tales of gawds, etc., have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants (Gregorian and otherwise), magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!





> So you disbelieve charicature of the gods?
> 
> Great. Way to go. I don't think anyone else believes that nonsense either.
> 
> So what you are saying is that you disbelieve something that appears to only be a straw man conception of your own mind and that of other uninformed atheists.



So what you&#8217;re saying is that you find it galling that someone would point out that your gods are no better demonstrated than any other of the 14,000 or so asserted gods invented by mankind. 

What theists (and their bellicose apologists), need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for _their own_ gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies believers in the Greek Gods with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames _your_ version as absurd.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, the only argument for the existence of the currently configured Judeo-Christian gods amount to "I read it in a book". Obviously, the Judeo-Christian gods are only one configuration of gawds.
> ...



Sure have, and they show how Christianity along with Islam helped to carry the ancient knowledge through the Middle Ages and expand on it; men like Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Newton and more. Almost all of the great scientists after 1800 were Christians working from a scholastic perspective on Nature which they believed to be orderly as God is orderly.

Have you ever studied a science text or history text that wasn't a slanted agit-prop rag?



Hollie said:


> It seems youre unable to confront the fact that religious institutions (christianity being an example), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery.



Bullshit. Christianity, Islam and judeaism practically restarted science after it nearly died out. This yolk you speak of is a myth.



Hollie said:


> I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part thats because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.



Throttled? Well, they are trying but they are doomed to failure just like the atheist bastards failed in the Soviet Union and the Eastern block.

Persecution simply makes Christianity grow faster. BTW, you might want to look at the growth of Christianity and how many adherents there are in the world. The only loss of members are among the tired old Protestant heresies that gave up on the core of Christian theology decades ago, and thus should die off.



Hollie said:


> Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.



No, but scientists are getting their careers wrecked by secular radicals that cant fathom the theological meaning of creationism and how it can be compatible with evolution.



Hollie said:


> The various bibles, as a holy books, are fine with that limitation. As science texts, however, they are indefensible.



Dude, the books of the Bible aren't science books to begin with.



Hollie said:


> The key is in their interpretation, which in the realm of science, should best be undertaken by scientists. Religious studies do not preclude scientific studies. Nor is the converse precluded. But they are separate realms, with separate goals and separate methods. It is a rare being who can work well on both levels, and the best minds in each discipline do not try to bridge the divide.



I totally agree.



Hollie said:


> I do not seek spiritual enlightenment in Darwin's "Origin of Species." Nor do I seek observation, hypothesis and experiment in any of the bibles.



Again, agreed. Man, you sure know how to pick a fight, lol. 



Hollie said:


> While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.



I think celtic herb lore should count in there somewhere, but still what you say is true, but from about 1400 to 1950 the vast majority of scientific advances in almost every field was done by Christians, Jews and Muslims.



Hollie said:


> The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone.



I think the polymath is about to be reborn. Human intefaces with computer memory is going to enable such men once again.



Hollie said:


> Your ignorance of your own ignorance is no excuse for such pointless argumentation.



Ignorance you have not demonstrated.





Hollie said:


> > So you disbelieve charicature of the gods?
> >
> > Great. Way to go. I don't think anyone else believes that nonsense either.
> >
> ...



No, the Abrahamic Gods are far better demonstrated and the theological concept of the Creator directly led to the discovery of the Big Bang in investigating the concept of the Cosmic Egg.

Perhaps a good remedial reading  course could help you with that.



Hollie said:


> What theists (and their bellicose apologists), need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for _their own_ gods.



That is total bullshit. Polytheistic 'gods' are born in time and space. The Abrahamic God created time and space. Big diff though you cant wrap your brain around it.



Hollie said:


> The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet.



No problemo.



Hollie said:


> To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies believers in the Greek Gods with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames _your_ version as absurd.



Hardly.

You really should learn a little bit about theology before shooting your mouth off about things you obviously do not comprehend.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Jun 2, 2013)

Any time some idiot starts spewing that religion is not scientific, someone should kick his ignorant ass up between his shoulders.

It's not that it will do anything to open his closed, rusted mind.  It's just that it would be great fun.

They will never, ever catch on to the fact that it is their willful ignorance and lack of thought that keeps them from realizing God.

You honestly cannot do anything about hidebound ignorance like that.  There's no reasoning with them because they don't understand reason.  They only understand method.  The concept of logos is beyond them.  The idea that human knowledge is limited by our very existence evades them.  The idea that anything could exist beyond their limited sensory input or ability to measure doesn't even enter their small minds.

The only God of which they can conceive is an anthropomorphic construct consistent with their comic book education.

Hindus give idiots like that mantras and the insturctions to chant them in the wan hope that it will keep their vapid minds occupied so they will do little, if any, harm.  At least it keeps them out of mischief for a while.

They think that how and why are the same.  They are unimaginative clods who are incapable of thinking in the abstract.  They didn't let idiots like that into universities not too long ago.  They put them in factories tightening bolts, or into office cubicles adding figures.  Now our educational system encourages the idiots in their foolishness.  The government pays them to do it.

They don't have a glimmer that the subject/object dichotomy is keeping them from seeing anything of value.  They'll never get beyond it.

Don't bother with them.  They are benighted.  Ignorance is bliss and they seem wonderfully happy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Why are you fucktards so enamored with the hole digging emoticon? I mean, the first 500 times, it was cute, but it's getting really tired and old. Do you do this all the time, whenever you've been bested in an argument, or is this just a recent trend? 

If you are not too closed minded, please allow me to make some alternate suggestions for the next time someone trounces your argument, and you can't find anything to say... 

 <-- this one is cute, and appropriate for you in particular. 

  <--another good one to use when ducking and dodging. 

  <-- this one fits for you as well. 

  <--this one speaks to your level of discourse. 

  <--my personal favorite! 


So, there you have some alternate suggestions. Please give the digger a break, he is working way too hard in this thread, trying to cover up your cat turds, apparently.


----------



## numan (Jun 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.


Perhaps it is simply that our large, complex and unstable brains cause us to be more deluded, and more deeply deluded, about many more things than other animals.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.
> ...



Yeah, because all the buildings, monuments, ships, aircraft, power generators, hospitals, etc, etc were all made by critters much more stable than human beings are.  /sarcasm

Dude, stop drinking the hate-humans Kool Aid.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

still no "cause" but lots of effect.
if you take out the god crutch would spirituality still stand?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Don't know about cock sure, but there is a high level of certitude.

I know that time as we know it can not be of infinite duration. 

I know that there has to be a cause to everything that originates within time/space, except for some person/force that exists outside our time and space to instigate our universe.

I know that I have consistently seen more joy in the lives of those that follow God's laws rather than those who do not.

These are enough for me though there is much more.



AVG-JOE said:


> I'll stand by what I said.  Any Monkey who tells you he KNOWS what happens at death is the Monkey deceived.



You really shouldn't talk to strange monkeys, or didn't your parents teach you that?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> still no "cause" but lots of effect.
> if you take out the god crutch would spirituality still stand?



If you cannot see that the YWH of Judaism/Christianity/Islam is not a crutch, then there isn't much help for you.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > still no "cause" but lots of effect.
> ...


what I see is they/ IT ARE A CRUTCH.
any one who says they are not the equivalent of addicts.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you know God is a crutch because anyone that thinks different is an addict? lolol

Tautology much?

God has enlightened mankind and His existence has shown us that the universe is rational, orderly and ruled by His laws that we now refer to as the laws of science, only there is no thing called science that can authorize laws as it is only an abstraction.

God is not an abstraction. God does rule.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


spoken like the truly indoctrinated.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.
> ...



Perhaps, but that would completely contradict Darwin.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Here's your problem: 95% of all humans who've roamed the planet, were "indoctrinated" spiritually, even in extreme conditions, where the 'indoctrinators' were forbidden or non-existent, and even under penalty of death. 

Meanwhile, you belong to the group who claim to be Nihilist, which make up the other 5%, regardless of how much effort you put into destroying spirituality. Chances are, if you are over 21, there was some point in your life where you were among the "indoctrinated," but have since adopted this new philosophy of belief in nothing.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


so now you claim to be psychic?
every thing you said about me is absolutely wrong.
your hubris is unzipped.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



more ad hominem; why don't you just shut the fuck up and stop acting like an idiot?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




*.... because all the buildings, monuments, ships, aircraft, power generators, hospitals, etc, etc*








*were all made by critters much more stable than human beings are.  /sarcasm*


as far as Spirituality, the moths have it over your buildings, hands down.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I don't need anything more than the posts you have made on this thread to see that you have no facts, no logic, no insight, only ad hominem, and half-baked long distance psychobabble.

In short, you are full of shit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



That is bullshit and you know it.

Why do so many anti-Christs these days use these idiotic lines of thought to justify their refusal to accept what is plain to 99% of the human population?

Answer: because they are not athiests/agnostics because they have made a carefully investigated and weighed decision. It's because they just could not care a shit less.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not psychic, just observant. 

It's funny how "Atheists" get defensive about being called Nihilists. However, belief in God is black or white, you either DO or DON'T, and you are on record here. Most Nihilists did not begin their lives this way, it was a learned behavior... or "indoctrination," as it were. It was just interesting to me, you made the choice to refer to those who are spiritual as "indoctrinated" when it's actually the other way around.


----------



## numan (Jun 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


To justify such a silly _non sequitur_, you would need to show how it would contradict Darwin -- either "completely" or partially.
.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I don't need anything more than the posts you have made on this thread to see that you have no facts, no logic, no insight, only ad hominem, and half-baked long distance psychobabble.
> 
> In short, you are full of shit.



Jim, if you read through this thread, you will find them routinely contradicting their own beloved science and even their 'prophet' Darwin. They will defy logic and rationality, and never even bat an eye. It doesn't seem to matter because they have developed a little 'support group' who will chime in to reaffirm their disbeliefs, and this gives them a sense of empowerment. 

Nothing in science supports their claims, but this never matters, because they can always hide behind the fact that science can't prove a negative. (Nevermind that physical science also cannot prove or disprove spiritual nature.) The ONLY explanation they have for the creation of the physical universe, is a theory that simply defies physics. Matter doesn't create matter, yet it had to happen for the universe to have started as they claim. Not only did this have to happen, but it had to be caused by a force outside of the physical universe, since the physical universe could not have created itself. These logical questions are dismissed, as they continue to insist the 'miracle of nature' is responsible for everything.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Well, because you are assigning an undesirable attribute which would not be conducive with survival of the species, and would have resulted in the humans with inferior working deluded minds to become extinct, as less deluded upper primates prevailed. It's relatively simple.


----------



## numan (Jun 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Thank you for demonstrating the crudity of your understanding of Evolution.

It is quite possible, and even common, for an adaptation to have both positive and negative influences on survival. For a trait to survive and be passed on, it is sufficient for the positive effects to outweigh the negative, compared to not having the trait at all.

As long as a big, complex, unstable brain does more to enhance our survival, despite certain negative propensities, then it is likely to endure.

An obvious example of what I am writing about is Sickle Cell Anaemia. 

Sickle Cell Anaemia is very disadvantageous in areas where malaria is not common -- yet the genes for this trait have not only survived, but increased their numbers and spread very far out of their African homeland -- because human civilization, which many people imagine to be advantageous, has been such an efficient spreader of malaria.
.

*THE OLD MAN ON THE FRONTIER LOSES A HORSE*  (Sai Weng Shi Ma)

*Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who was adept as a sage. The man owned a mare which one day escaped and went off into barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what makes you think it is not good fortune?"

Several months later, his horse returned, with a superb barbarian stallion following her. Everyone congratulated the old man. But he said: "what makes you think this cannot be a misfortune?"

The family was richer by a good horse, and the old man's son liked to ride it. One day the son fell off and broke his hip and was lamed for life. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said: "what makes you think this is not good fortune?"

One year later, there was a large incursion of barbarians into the borderlands. Every able-bodied young man was drafted and went off to war --- but the old man's son was rejected on account of his lameness. Of those who went off, nine out of ten were killed. The son was spared because he was lame, so he and his father had each other to rely on for support.

So good fortune changes into bad fortune; bad fortune changes into good fortune. There is no limit to transformation; its depth cannot be fathomed.*
---Huai Nanzi
.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


that's mighty Christian of you stranger!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


more specious assumption.
how do you become indoctrinated not believing ?
no need to answer as what ever you say will be subjective and bias.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



O.k. - you have a 'high level of certitude' that's not quite 'cock-sure' that you know what happens at death.

We'll get to exactly what that is after you tell me *why* you have such high confidence in the stories you've been told.


________________________
As for talking to strange monkeys, that's never going to happen - monkeys can't talk.  

Talking to strange Monkeys on the other hand is like a part time job for me here on the Message Board, and I enjoy it.  That fine bit of parental advice regarding not talking to strangers is generally reserved for young Monkeys... once a Monkey matures, talking to strangers becomes part of everyday life as a full-grown Monkey.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


btw 99% of the earth population are NOT Christian

There are said to be up to 2.1 billion Christians in the world. This includes those who are registered in some European countries as members of the state Church, on an opt-out basis - in other words, in some countries you are registered as a Christian unless you take the trouble to inform the state otherwise. Not all Christians are practising Christians in the sense of regular church attendance, and in some countries fewer than 5 per cent of the estimated Christian population actually attend church regularly. 

 The total number of practising Christians must exceed 85 million and is probably very much higher. On the other hand, it is certainly much less than 1 billion people.
Rate This Answer


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We're not like the monkeys, Joe, that's the whole point here. We possess an attribute the monkeys never will have, the ability to make a spiritual connection to something greater than self. It's not the product of evolution, nothing else in nature does it.
> ...



The need for religion (and other 'life after death' belief systems) can be summed up in three little words:
Fear of Death.​

The difference between Monkeys and the rest of the animals, as Boss and others have pointed out, is Sentience.  Sentience is living with the certain knowledge that life ends, and the ability to imagine possibilities for an extension.

Is there ANY religion that's not focused at least in part on what happens at death?  



The need for (insert your preferred Deity here - a.k.a. 'God') is directly attributable to the knowledge of death, and the fear that knowledge generates because of the inevitable question, "What's next?!?"  


To console the living by speaking of the recently departed with over-confident statements like "She's in a better place" is arrogance defined, considering our actual knowledge of the subject.


----------



## Dante (Jun 3, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Jun 3, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The Denial of Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I think our "fear of death" stems FROM our ability to spiritually connect. My rationale, is very much a part of physical science, because we do not see this "fear of death" manifesting anywhere else in nature. Of course, every living thing will attempt to preserve life for itself, that is natural. But the contemplation and 'worry' about death, is exclusive to our species. So is spiritual connection. 

It is indeed an anomaly that can't be rationally dismissed, as numan and others would like to do. Our complexed brains didn't cause us to imagine a delusion, which just so happened to be the impetus behind everything that distinguishes us from the rest of life. This not only defies everything that Darwin had to say about natural selection, but it nullifies all logic.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> still no "cause" but lots of effect.
> if you take out the god crutch would spirituality still stand?



Define the crutch.  If Monkeys, sans their Gods, would lose all hope and self destruct, would personal worship of a God, and the utter freedom to do so be a bad thing?

In the humble opinion of this average Monkey, Monkeys are born with two and only two "rights", ass-u-me-ing they hit the ground breathing and survive to adulthood:  the right to their own attitude and the right to be wrong in their guess at the shared query: "What happens at death?"

That's the beauty of the US Constitution...  among other things it codifies the concept of free thought.

Welcome to America, where Christians have just as much a right to be wrong as do Muslims, Atheists, Mormons, Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  
Beliefs are like nipples... every Monkey has a set and no two sets are identical.​


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



You've drifted away from natural selection now. I understand why you have to do that, because I am correct and you don't want to admit it. Still, the point made was valid, and stands. According to Darwin, if what you surmise were true, the upper primates who share 98% of our DNA, and who have the same complex cerebral cortex and brain as humans, physically speaking, would have prevailed over the handicapped humans who suffered from debilitating delusions and irrational fears. 

We possess no other unique attribute, besides spirituality. Everything else, is evidenced in nature to some degree, intelligence, creativity, imagination, ingenuity... it can all be exemplified to some degree, in other species. What is not duplicated anywhere, is human spirituality. It is through this unique attribute, we are able to do things the other forms of life have not achieved and will never achieve.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


_"I went SKY-diving..."_
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_ffBMMsqA]Tim McGraw - Live Like You Were Dying - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dante (Jun 3, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



seriously? good for you!

I had reservations to do that and learn to fly a glider and weather conspired against me each time. Flew in a very small plane and took controls.. a Cessna 150 training plane ... knees in my throat it was so frigging small...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



I would imagine that the ability to imagine figures a bit in a 'Spiritual Trait' that sets Monkeys apart from animals. 

If any Monkey religion turns out to be close to correct, I hope it's a spiritual one that has a reset button.  

It's been a fun ride so far, and looking forward to more, but an extension beyond the inevitable unknown would ROCK!!!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > still no "cause" but lots of effect.
> ...


imo the crutch is giving everything over to god ..in other words taking responsibility.
you're 100%percent correct that everybody has the right to be wrong.
after all, we're still just Monkeys


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Who, me?!?

I haven't been skydiving, its the words to the song.  

Truth be told, skydiving is NOT one that's on my bucket list, nor is bungee jumping .


----------



## daws101 (Jun 3, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


I don't know if you're gonna buy it both seem fairly fast


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

Ass-U-me-ing catastrophic failure, but there's a LOT of ways to survive either of those activities and regret it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



lol, you libtards just cant get your facts straight.

We are not monkeys, we are apes without tales.

But some are also monkeys, like most libtards I have met are definitely monkeys.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Apes without 'tales'?  

But...
But...​But...  Tellin' tales is what Monkeys *do*!​
Ancient tales, tall tales, post-modern tales... tales of love, tales of wonder.  Don't sell yourself short, Monkey.

And don't be rude.  You know damn well that it's 'Monkey', not 'monkey'.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2013)

> *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> 
> Fear of Death.




*... 'life after death'*


well, again they are not solving their problems before the physiological form ceases and just hope maybe something will happen after their last breath ... you may as well state a solution not found in time is certain death.


"life after death" will never occur - only uninterrupted life that continues living will enter the OuterWorld of the Everlasting.


----------



## numan (Jun 4, 2013)

> *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> 
> Fear of Death.


Well, fear of a lot of things. But one should not forget the social aspects of religion -- shmoozing is important, not to mention cheating the rubes of their money and possessions.

A lot of religion can be summed up in two points :

1. Marx's dictum : *"Religion is the opium of the masses."*

2. *Churches are the country clubs of the  poor* · · _[that's mine]_

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

numan said:


> > *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> >
> > Fear of Death.
> 
> ...



Great... Let's see if we can prop up religion once more, so that we can kick it in the teeth again, because we just haven't had our fill yet, right? I understand why Marx had disdain for religion, you have to rid man of spiritual thought in order to have them worship statist government instead. But why do so many people in this thread, continue to conflate human spirituality with religion, which the spirituality fostered? 

If humans "fear death" and you are correct about god and spiritual nature not existing, then it is a totally irrational and illogical fear. Why would humans (or any living thing) develop a totally irrational and illogical fear? Where did that "evolve" from? More importantly, why would this irrational and illogical fear persist for the entirety of the species, when no similar anomaly exists anywhere else in nature? 

It seems to me, the "age of enlightenment" and development of philosophy, would have taken the place of all our irrational and illogical fears, and we would have abandon the silly attribute of spirituality. But, nope... 95% of humans still believe in something greater than self.... silly Monkeys!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> >
> > Fear of Death.
> 
> ...



Nope. Fear of death is the motivation.

 I think that arguments for belief in the supernatural can be resolved by describing one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs: The deep seated fear of dying, fear of the unknown and a desire to experience our lives. Perhaps not everyone shares those feeling, perhaps not everyone can. The best way to ameliorate such fear is to actively be involved in making our lives meaningful and relevant. The onus is on us, not a father in the sky.

 It is quite obvious that religions use fear as a form of mind control.  Converting out of ones religion (or simply rejecting the coercive efforts to join the religion),  is usually accompanied by threats of being punished by whatever head deity captains the particular religion.  How utterly weak a faith must be that it must control its adherents through threats and intimidation.

Think about it, what is the best way to get someone to believe as you wish for them to? FEAR. Scare the hell out of him. Tell the people that "evilutionists" are on a paved road to hell...., tell people that leaving the faith will cause god(s) to abandon them (and back up those threats with images of searing flesh, winged monsters, eternal torment), and you will deter them (for a time) until they LEARN better.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


so god is an evolutionist?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

numan said:


> > *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> >
> > Fear of Death.
> 
> ...


what about the rich churches? the Mormons come to mind.
fun fact the LDS church own the worlds largest cattle ranch.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

> Nope. Fear of death is the motivation.



Hey, hardhead... you need to provide some evidence of this claim, because it DEFIES nature. No other living thing is so worried about death that it creates a security blanket. Nothing! There has never been such an example in all of history, regarding any form of life. What you are presuming, has NO BASIS!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> A nation that prays to God for true guidance will receive true guidance. Proof positive of God. A person who prays for true guidance from God will receive the very same. A person who does not believe in God will not ask for guidance and will receive none.



You forgot to append "because I say so" to your comment.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > > *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> ...



LDS charities also provide more humanitarian aid to more people worldwide, than ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET, INCLUDING THE RED CROSS! 

...So you can now have a big tall glass of STFU!


----------



## numan (Jun 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > > *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> ...


One would be surprised if scamming cults were not rich.

Of course, the scammers at the top return as little as they can to their "useful idiots" -- generally, very little bread and a lot of circuses.
.


----------



## numan (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> LDS charities also provide more humanitarian aid to more people worldwide, than ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET, INCLUDING THE RED CROSS!
> 
> ...So you can now have a big tall glass of STFU!


Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I wonder if "Boss" *[another clue?]* is a former, or presently practising, Mormon?

That might explain his absurd over-confidence that he has proven the contention of his opening posting.

I mean, they actually claim that the Mayas were Post-Exilic Jews!!





.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


you must have been reading one of their flyers...
btw the red cross does not recruit during disasters the Mormons do...they're not in it for the general good, it's PR.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> You forgot to append "because I say so" to your comment.



Throughout the thread, this has been a popular meme. Those of you who continue to deny spiritual nature, offer absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support your claims, then you accuse your adversaries of "because I say so" when they are the only ones presenting evidence. So do we need to just start amending YOUR commentary with this meme as well? Or can we grow the fuck up and try to have an adult conversation here?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LDS charities also provide more humanitarian aid to more people worldwide, than ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET, INCLUDING THE RED CROSS!
> ...


you're singing to the choir on that one.
they also believe the garden of Eden is in Missouri.....


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Nope. Fear of death is the motivation.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, hardhead... you need to provide some evidence of this claim, because it DEFIES nature. No other living thing is so worried about death that it creates a security blanket. Nothing! There has never been such an example in all of history, regarding any form of life. What you are presuming, has NO BASIS!



Settle down, sweetie. I'm here to help you learn. If you need evidence that religions use fear as a motivational tool, threats of eternal proportions abound in your bibles. 

Secondly, humans are endowed with a sentient knowledge of "self", "mortality" and "community"  as a result of higher brain function. That is why humans have a 70,000 year record of building religions and gods, and why some have exploited those fears and superstitions. 

As to threats and warnings in &#8220;holy texts&#8221;, of course they&#8217;re there. Their purpose is to control those gullible enough to believe a supernatural entity will cause you burn in hell for not kowtowing to the men who wrote the book. All three Abrahamic religions use a form of mind control, (fear) to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior to ameliorate the gap between gods and men.

Reincarnation is the device used by Buddhism and Hinduism, wherein the "punishment" is a repeatable life that would stress the soul in ways it stressed others in its previous life. Every religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects commercial life (tithing for instance), educational (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveraging that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies).

Live in wrenching fear of gods and demons if you wish. Or &#8211; just revise your religion and it&#8217;s gods to make them whatever you would like them to be. Most people do precisely that.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to append "because I say so" to your comment.
> ...



You mistake your goofy, "because I say so", demands as being relevant.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> you must have been reading one of their flyers...
> btw the red cross does not recruit during disasters the Mormons do...they're not in it for the general good, it's PR.



Nope. When Romney was running for president, I researched LDS, and found this fun fact. 

I have no idea what you mean by "recruiting" and how LDS differs from the Red Cross. Seems to me, the Red Cross recruits people to help whenever a disaster strikes.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LDS charities also provide more humanitarian aid to more people worldwide, than ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET, INCLUDING THE RED CROSS!
> ...



Yes, I fully understand you all want me to be some religious nutcase, so you can then turn this topic into a theocratic debate. I'm not a Mormon, I do not belong to any organized religion, and I think most organized religions misinterpret god. Religious people call me a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist. 

What you mistakenly perceive as "protest" is merely me, responding to idiots who want to take pot shots at religion. You've got to stop reading stuff into what I say, and believing I have some hidden religious agenda. I have no reason to hide anything here. 

Look... the basic logic here, doesn't even make any sense. I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian and don't believe in the Bible. Now... IF I am really a secret Christian, lying to you about that, I have condemned myself to hell for eternity, according to the Bible. Why in the hell would I condemn myself to hell for all of eternity, just to fool an idiot on a message board? Makes no sense at all, does it?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > you must have been reading one of their flyers...
> ...


yep...I grew up in the Mormon church...and saw recruiting first hand.
the red cross asks for "volunteers" the Mormons attempt to recruit new members every chance they get, it's part of they're doctrine.
so somebody's talking out their ass and it not me .


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > > *AVG-JOE:* The need for religion (*and other 'life after death' belief systems*) can be summed up in three little words:
> ...



Which came first, Human spirituality or Monkey religion?    The chicken or the egg?


Silly indeed


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Nope. Fear of death is the motivation.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, hardhead... you need to provide some evidence of this claim, because it DEFIES nature. No other living thing is so worried about death that it creates a security blanket. Nothing! There has never been such an example in all of history, regarding any form of life. What you are presuming, has NO BASIS!



How do you figure?

The context of the 'fear of death' quote is undoubtably human spirituality, so no other life forms are in play.  The evidence presented is the plethora of religions that Monkeys have to choose from.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Nope. Fear of death is the motivation.
> ...



And I am here to help you learn, sweetie. This isn't about religion, it's about the attribute of human spirituality. You maintain it is born out of fear, and I argue that you have not made that case. Furthermore, it defies nature to make such a claim. These "fears" humans have, which no other living thing has, are the *byproducts* of our spiritual connection, which no other living things have. Perhaps you can argue that our spiritual connection manifested into 'religions of fear', I don't have a problem with that argument, but that's not what you claimed. 



> Secondly, humans are endowed with a sentient knowledge of "self", "mortality" and "community"  *as a result of higher brain function.* That is why humans have a 70,000 year record of building religions and gods, and why some have exploited those fears and superstitions.



This is simply not supported by nature. There is simply nothing about our brain and how it functions, that is physically different from other upper primates. Yet we see absolutely no signs of other species even being interested in spirituality, even the ones who share 98% of our DNA, and whose brain function is exactly the same as our own. Our higher level of success and achievement, with relatively the same brain as a chimpanzee, is made possible *because of* our spiritual connection, which the chimp doesn't possess. 



> As to threats and warnings in holy texts, of course theyre there. Their purpose is to control those gullible enough to believe a supernatural entity will cause you burn in hell for not kowtowing to the men who wrote the book. All three Abrahamic religions use a form of mind control, (fear) to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior to ameliorate the gap between gods and men.
> 
> Reincarnation is the device used by Buddhism and Hinduism, wherein the "punishment" is a repeatable life that would stress the soul in ways it stressed others in its previous life. Every religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects commercial life (tithing for instance), educational (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveraging that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies).
> 
> Live in wrenching fear of gods and demons if you wish. Or  just revise your religion and its gods to make them whatever you would like them to be. Most people do precisely thst.



Again, you rip into a long-winded rant about organized religions, which are the *byproduct* of human spirituality. We can get into a long debate over why religion relies on fear to establish an organization around spiritual belief, but this doesn't refute the fact that humans spiritually connect. In fact, it merely reinforces the point. I imagine, it wasn't long after man discovered his ability to connect spiritually, he began working on a way to instill this attribute in other men. This resulted in a method of spiritual practice or ritual, and advanced to include dogma and anecdotes to motivate a healthy spiritual compliance...thus, religions were born. 

Get your head out of your butt and try to understand, religion *followed* human spirituality! The "fears of death" and all the other fears man has, *followed* human spirituality! The advancement of our species and what makes us vastly different from any other living thing, is a *result of* our ability to spiritually connect.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Nope. Fear of death is the motivation.
> ...



Fear of death is NOT the *motivation for* human spiritual belief. It is *motivated by* human spirituality.  The cart is ahead of the horse. This is why Hollie can find no other example in nature to confirm this illogical viewpoint.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

Religion is born of the fear that results from the comprehension of spiritual possibilities, including the very real possibility that the one life known of is the only one a Monkey gets.

The 'Great Unknown' *includes* the spiritual possibilities that death is a reset button, AND death as the true end.

Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.

As long as what awaits Monkeys beyond the door of death remains unknown, so will human spirituality and religion remain wildly diverse conglomerations of questions and theories.

Is that fuzzy feeling that a Monkey gets *proof* that a spiritual world exists?   It sure as hell does for the Monkey who feels the connection!  And the rest of us owe that speculation a modicum of respect, if for no other reason than to be able to demand a bit of respect for our own silly speculations at what awaits a Monkey when a meeting with Death is on the old appointment calendar.

That's right... I said ALL religion is naught but theories - step 1 in banding all our little tribes of Monkeys into a community capable of reaching for the stars.


----------



## Ropey (Jun 4, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The definitive word is "Reaching".

All together now, reach for the sun.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

> In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?



In the grand scheme of things, does it matter if some people believe Mt. Rushmore is the result of nature instead of the product of design? Does it matter that we have strong and compelling evidence it was carved by men, and not some bizarre phenomenon found nowhere else in nature?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Ropey said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQj--Kjn0z8]Smash Mouth - Walkin' On The Sun - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ropey (Jun 4, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xORUCLvvjzQ]The Cult - Sun King - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEzs0Jp_Jds]Katrina & The Waves - Walking on Sunshine (1983) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6j4TGqVl5g]The Beatles- Here Comes The Sun - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



I've seen GOD, spoken with GOD, and GOD spoke to me. GOD was very clear about being a manifestation of the mind, the result of neuro-chemical processes.  There is the proof your looking for.  Definitive proof that GOD only exists in your head.


----------



## Ropey (Jun 4, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/KE4HGlmtOcg]fleetwood mac oh well[/ame]



> Now, when I talked to God I knew He'd understand
> He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
> Don't ask me what I think of you
> I might not give the answer that you want me to"


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, hardhead... you need to provide some evidence of this claim, because it DEFIES nature. No other living thing is so worried about death that it creates a security blanket. Nothing! There has never been such an example in all of history, regarding any form of life. What you are presuming, has NO BASIS!
> ...





> And I am here to help you learn, sweetie. This isn't about religion, it's about the attribute of human spirituality. You maintain it is born out of fear, and I argue that you have not made that case. Furthermore, it defies nature to make such a claim. These "fears" humans have, which no other living thing has, are the *byproducts* of our spiritual connection, which no other living things have. Perhaps you can argue that our spiritual connection manifested into 'religions of fear', I don't have a problem with that argument, but that's not what you claimed.


It certainly is about religion and not some obtuse, undefined term (&#8220;spiritualty&#8221, you prefer to use. It is actually quite a simple matter to demonstrate that religions have been human constructs. Many gods have been invented to explain natural processes that were not understand. As we have seen, most of these gods (of thunder, lightning, fire, etc.), have been replaced by knowledge.
This is why your &#8220;Byproducts&#8221; claim is so clearly self-refuting.  There is one factual difference that separates humans from other animals in addition to our DNA and that is _sentience_. 

We can dismiss your underlying demand that humanity is subservient to some &#8220;thing&#8221; you call &#8220;spirituality&#8221; which, of course, we can _actually_ attribute to your version of a supernatural force of divinity because that approach assumes the point you are trying to prove is true. And it's not been shown to be true. Remove humans from the equation, and you lose the more complex version of sentience (self awareness, a sense of mortality and human emotions), that we experience. Remove humans from the equation and _all_ fully self-aware sentience concepts go away as far as we can possibly tell-- unless there are other sentient beings out there we do not know of.




> Secondly, humans are endowed with a sentient knowledge of "self", "mortality" and "community"  *as a result of higher brain function.* That is why humans have a 70,000 year record of building religions and gods, and why some have exploited those fears and superstitions.





> This is simply not supported by nature. There is simply nothing about our brain and how it functions, that is physically different from other upper primates. Yet we see absolutely no signs of other species even being interested in spirituality, even the ones who share 98% of our DNA, and whose brain function is exactly the same as our own. Our higher level of success and achievement, with relatively the same brain as a chimpanzee, is made possible *because of* our spiritual connection, which the chimp doesn't possess.


Nonsense. Your claim that there is no difference between human brains and those of primates is indefesible. Your claim is only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be this &#8220;spirituality&#8221; thing. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of &#8220;spiritual connection&#8221; which you can&#8217;t even define.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or "spirituality" because the claim remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. 

I do have a comment about personality, (which you are confusing with &#8220;spirituality&#8221; and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a &#8220;spirit&#8221; each, and that means humans are the _e_special creation of one or more gods. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods, &#8220;spirits&#8221; or supernaturalism needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your &#8220;spirituality&#8221; is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the &#8220;spirits&#8221; cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. These &#8220;spirits&#8221; must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for personality, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and &#8220;spirits&#8221; and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.

Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.





> As to threats and warnings in &#8220;holy texts&#8221;, of course they&#8217;re there. Their purpose is to control those gullible enough to believe a supernatural entity will cause you burn in hell for not kowtowing to the men who wrote the book. All three Abrahamic religions use a form of mind control, (fear) to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior to ameliorate the gap between gods and men.
> 
> Reincarnation is the device used by Buddhism and Hinduism, wherein the "punishment" is a repeatable life that would stress the soul in ways it stressed others in its previous life. Every religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects commercial life (tithing for instance), educational (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveraging that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies).
> 
> Live in wrenching fear of gods and demons if you wish. Or &#8211; just revise your religion and it&#8217;s gods to make them whatever you would like them to be. Most people do precisely thst.





> Again, you rip into a long-winded rant about organized religions, which are the *byproduct* of human spirituality. We can get into a long debate over why religion relies on fear to establish an organization around spiritual belief, but this doesn't refute the fact that humans spiritually connect. In fact, it merely reinforces the point. I imagine, it wasn't long after man discovered his ability to connect spiritually, he began working on a way to instill this attribute in other men. This resulted in a method of spiritual practice or ritual, and advanced to include dogma and anecdotes to motivate a healthy spiritual compliance...thus, religions were born.
> 
> Get your head out of your butt and try to understand, religion *followed* human spirituality! The "fears of death" and all the other fears man has, *followed* human spirituality! The advancement of our species and what makes us vastly different from any other living thing, is a *result of* our ability to spiritually connect.


And not surprisingly, aside from your &#8220;because I say so&#8221;, comment,  we have not a single shred of evidence to confirm your claims.
Sorry, your &#8220;spirituality&#8221; (appeals to gods), remains undemonstrated. There's definitely a difference between us, and it's in something called "standards".

Speaking of &#8220;standards&#8221;, do you know the meaning of the term?

I found it odd that only a paragraph ago you wrote:
 &#8220;_There is simply nothing about our brain and how it functions, that is physically different from other upper primates_&#8221;


Suddenly, your argumentation has changed. You now write:
_&#8221;The advancement of our species and what makes us vastly different from any other living thing,_

Quite the waffle there.

I&#8217;m not sure what &#8220;spirituality&#8221; is. I have trust in science, medicine, the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods, spirits, etc.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?
> ...



Rushmore ROCKS!!!  
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpnhMQpCJ2Y]MOUNT RUSHMORE/CRAZY HORSE - YouTube[/ame]
Crazy Horse is pretty cool too!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 4, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You do make sense.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...



Do you think that human memories exist?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I fully understand you all want me to be some religious nutcase, so you can then turn this topic into a theocratic debate. I'm not a Mormon, I do not belong to any organized religion, and I think most organized religions misinterpret god. Religious people call me a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist.
> ...



  To possibilities... among them spiritual.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 4, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



lol,  no one is a monkey, so what you are trying to demonstrate, I don't know, but this thread has degenerated into a waist of tyhme.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

Just another Monkey with a keyboard trying to prove the pen to be mightier than the sword.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

And the beat goes on...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alSr-G5beDc]Del Amitri - Nothing Ever Happens (with lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> And the beat goes on...
> Del Amitri - Nothing Ever Happens (with lyrics) - YouTube


[ame=http://youtu.be/5zNdMc6wGtU]Talking Heads - Heaven - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jun 4, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/I1wg1DNHbNU]Talking Heads - "Once In A Lifetime" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 4, 2013)

So... we know that we know that we know that everything is on the table and all things are possible when it comes to the view beyond death's door.



Hope... where imagination cooks with possibilities.

I hope there's more...  What Monkey wouldn't?  Spiritual possibilities... makes me even less inclined to consider the ancient stories based on Abraham... considering the possibilities since the dawn of Sentience, they aren't nearly ancient enough!


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> It certainly is about religion and not some obtuse, undefined term (spiritualty), you prefer to use.



It certainly is NOT about religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection, and there is nothing obtuse or ambiguous about this spiritual connection humans have. Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument... 



> It is actually quite a simple matter to demonstrate that religions have been human constructs. Many gods have been invented to explain natural processes that were not understand. As we have seen, most of these gods (of thunder, lightning, fire, etc.), have been replaced by knowledge.
> This is why your Byproducts claim is so clearly self-refuting.  There is one factual difference that separates humans from other animals in addition to our DNA and that is _sentience_.



Religions are most definitely human constructs, I never said otherwise. They are the result of spiritual connection to spiritual nature, which is not a human construct. Yes indeed, as science has explained away all the 'unknowns' of ancient man, religion has needed to alter teachings and modify itself, but human spirituality remains unchanged. 

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. There are an abundance of animals which have sentience. The one factual difference is the human attribute of spirituality. 



> We can dismiss your underlying demand that humanity is subservient to some thing you call spirituality which, of course, we can _actually_ attribute to your version of a supernatural force of divinity because that approach assumes the point you are trying to prove is true. And it's not been shown to be true.



Well, it most definitely IS true that humans have practiced spirituality for as long as we find evidence of human civilization. To deny this reality is just plain factually inaccurate. I have already rejected the term "supernatural" because human spirituality is indeed, a part of nature. I don't comprehend what "divinity" means in this context, I have made no such "religious" determinations for god. 



> Remove humans from the equation, and you lose the more complex version of sentience (self awareness, a sense of mortality and human emotions), that we experience. Remove humans from the equation and _all_ fully self-aware sentience concepts go away as far as we can possibly tell-- unless there are other sentient beings out there we do not know of.



Since humans are the only living things with the ability to spiritually connect, it stands to reason, if humans are not present, there would be no realization of spiritual nature. This simply doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that other living things aren't able to spiritually connect. Again, other animals have sentience and self-awareness. What they lack, is the ability to spiritually connect. 



> Nonsense. Your claim that there is no difference between human brains and those of primates is indefesible. Your claim is only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be this spirituality thing. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of spiritual connection which you cant even define.



I have defined spiritual nature several times in the thread, it's a lie to keep pretending I haven't. You have not shown me how the human brain functions physically different from other upper primates. The physiological makeup is exactly the same, the functioning and operation is identical. The difference, and the ONLY difference, is human spirituality. And I didn't "decide" this exists, the evidence shows it has existed in humans as long as there have been humans. You have also not refuted that fact. 



> I have no explanation for "spirits" or "spirituality" because the claim remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.



So you are rejecting the fact that humans have been practicing spirituality as long as we find evidence of man's existence? How much more of a "demonstration" do you need, besides billions of people over thousands of years, exhibiting the behavior of spirituality? 



> I do have a comment about personality, (which you are confusing with spirituality and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a spirit each, and that means humans are the _e_special creation of one or more gods. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods, spirits or supernaturalism needed.



Other animals have personality, have you never owned a pet? Do you understand you just reeled off a series of attributes other animals have in common with humans, to some degree, and the only thing that is not present in other animals is spirituality? I've not claimed that selfhood is exclusive to humans, or sentience, or personality. Only spirituality. Isn't it curious, we are the only creatures capable of advanced thought and achievement, and we are also the only creatures who have spiritual connection? That's not a coincidence.



> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your spirituality is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the spirits cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. These spirits must be fairly weak.



Well, I am not here to argue God of Abraham, which is what you seem to think. It's not "MY" spirituality, I wasn't even here for most of the past 70,000 years. Yes... if we do a lobotomy on a human, they may no longer realize spiritual nature... that doesn't prove it is non-existent. Sorry! 



> This is a perfectly valid explanation for personality, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.



Again, this is not a discussion about "mumbo jumbo" that humans created as a result of their connections to spiritual nature. You can explain personality all day long, and I can show you examples of other animals who have personality... what you can't show me, and I can't show you, is another example of a living thing, practicing spirituality. This attribute was present in man BEFORE religions, it is what sparked religion. Other upper primates share as much as 98% of our DNA, and have brains which function exactly the same as the human brain, but this hasn't caused them to create imaginary delusions of things to rationalize an irrational fear of death or fill the gaps of knowledge they lack. Nowhere else in nature do we observe this behavioral attribute, it is exclusive to humans. It's certainly not unreasonable to correlate the success of humans over all other creatures and our ability to spiritually connect. 



> Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.



You can't demonstrate any such thing, or you'd be able to cite examples where we find this behavior to some degree, in other upper primates, at least. Instead, there is absolutely no evidence of spirituality in any other species. Not a little bit, not to a lesser degree, it simply does not exist in nature, other than, in humans. Now, do humans have some chemical reaction happening in their brains that doesn't happen in chimpanzees? You've shown no evidence to support that argument. 



> By way of example, I can
> 
> 1. end all thought by killing that brain
> 2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
> ...



What the fuck is this supposed to prove? Yes... if you remove someone's brain or kill them, they will no longer make a spiritual connection. But then, all you really have to do, is stubbornly insist there is no god and become a Nihilist... that works too! It just doesn't negate spiritual nature, which still exists. 



> Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.



Emotions do not exist because of a spiritual source. Other animals express emotions all the time... again, have you never owned a pet? Spiritual nature exists or humans wouldn't be intrinsically tied to it for all their existence. It's not a delusional or imaginary weakness, or other upper primates would have trumped our asses out of existence long ago, since they didn't need a crutch or security blanket. Your idea actually defies Darwin. 




> I found it odd that only a paragraph ago you wrote:
> _There is simply nothing about our brain and how it functions, that is physically different from other upper primates_
> 
> Suddenly, your argumentation has changed. You now write:
> ...



There is no waffling there. Sorry you misinterpreted me. Physiologically, our brains are no different in composition or function as other upper primates. Yet, we have been able to achieve all that makes humans superior to other animals. The ONLY real defining difference, is our unique ability of spiritual connection. You've presented NO evidence of anything else. 



> Im not sure what spirituality is. I have trust in science, medicine, the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods, spirits, etc.



The fact that you reject your spiritual nature, doesn't mean it is non-existent. You continue to illustrate the burr in your saddle, is RELIGION. You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 4, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen GOD, spoken with GOD, and GOD spoke to me. GOD was very clear about being a manifestation of the mind, the result of neuro-chemical processes. *There is the proof your looking for. *Definitive proof that GOD only exists in your head.
> ...


Do you think that human memories exist?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So why do you dodge the question? Yes, I think memories exist, DO YOU?

Its an easy fucking question; why don't you answer it?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> It certainly is NOT about religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection, and there is nothing obtuse or ambiguous about this spiritual connection humans have. Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...



My anticipation with such pompous claims as Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument... , typically indicates that what follows is going to be composed of similarly pompous piffle.

Unfortunately for you, you confirmed the stereotype. We were once again drenched in your empty claims to spirituality, spiritual nature, not so vague references to gods / theology / religion and metaphysics.

Its a shame because the entirety of your posts amount to false claims, unsupported assertion, slogans and re-hashed religious claims.

So let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity (something you call spiritual nature) that cannot be tested, cannot be confirmed except with because I say so demands, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we cannot understand or even describe, which has no physical attributes we can confirm but, according to you exists  -- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.



> The fact that you reject your spiritual nature, doesn't mean it is non-existent. You continue to illustrate the burr in your saddle, is RELIGION. You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.



The fact that you make claims to something you call ("spiritual nature", ie: gods) which you cannot define, demonstrate or confirm makes me perfectly fine with rejecting your false claims.

Your personal hatred with being held to a definable standard doesn't negate your responsibility to present a defendable argument. Supernaturalism, metaphysics and bluster doesn't make a defendable argument.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It certainly is NOT about religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection, and there is nothing obtuse or ambiguous about this spiritual connection humans have. Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...
> ...



I have made no religious claims, nor have I failed to support anything I have asserted. However, you continue to try and make this a religious argument, and you continue to fail to support your viewpoint with ANY valid evidence, aside from your profound opinions. This is extremely ironic that you continue to accuse me of exactly what you have done here. 



> So let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity (something you call spiritual nature) that cannot be tested, cannot be confirmed except with because I say so demands, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we cannot understand or even describe, which has no physical attributes we can confirm but, according to you exists  -- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.



But here's what you don't seem to comprehend, since you reject spiritual evidence... Not everyone sees things the same as you. Spiritual nature can indeed be tested and confirmed spiritually, by those who accept and acknowledge spiritual nature. Spiritual nature does not exist outside the natural realm, it is indeed a part of nature itself, you just don't recognize it. There is no physical attributes because it is spiritual, it defies logic for there to be physical or material evidence for it, because then, it would be physical and not spiritual in nature. You continue to demand illogical evidence. 

Even a complete retard, should be able to realize, our species has not mistakenly adopted a delusional attribute for all of it's existence, out of fears and doubts that are not present anywhere else in nature. 



> > The fact that you reject your spiritual nature, doesn't mean it is non-existent. You continue to illustrate the burr in your saddle, is RELIGION. You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have defined spiritual nature, numerous times. It is NOT supernatural, it is very natural. Humans have connected to spiritual nature for all of their existence, that is evidence enough that it exists, and it's hard to argue with the results of human spirituality. Now, religious incarnations of god, is a different debate. I've made no claim that any particular incarnation of god exists, because I don't know. Throughout the 2,200+ posts in this thread, I have certainly defended my argument, mostly against people who want to conflate religion and spirituality and make this into a religious debate. The fact that I refuse to submit to your demands to define a specific god you can attack, is frustrating the bejesus out of you. It's making you spew unreasonable shit and repeat yourself. 

Now... Where the hell is all your evidence of chemical reactions and wild neurons in humans brains that are vastly different from other upper primates, which caused man to imagine a delusion for all of our existence, without which, we could have never achieved what we have? I'm not seeing that in your posts, I see you dodging this, and insisting on "because I say so" as your basis for argument.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 5, 2013)

Subjective v objective


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.*





Boss said:


> I have made no religious claims, nor have I failed to support anything I have asserted.



Playing language games.
**{"God exists", "spiritual"} <> {"religious"}

Subjective proof?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> I have made no religious claims, nor have I failed to support anything I have asserted. However, you continue to try and make this a religious argument, and you continue to fail to support your viewpoint with ANY valid evidence, aside from your profound opinions. This is extremely ironic that you continue to accuse me of exactly what you have done here.



It's clear that the entirety of your argument is drenched in religious undertones. Your claims to this undefined phenomenon you call "spiritual nature" has all the earmarks of religion, yet you're unable to be honest with yourself and others regarding your agenda. 

And yes, my viewpoint has been supported. The physical properties of brain activity (electro-chemical activity), can obviously be observed and measured. Similarly, stimulation or alteration of that electro-chemical activity can be used to induce or modify behaviors. The medical practice of psychiatry uses drugs to alter chemical processes or activities in the brain as a means to modify behavior. 

See? My argument is readily supportable. Not so with your falsified claims to metaphysics which you admit are not open to testing in any meaningful way. How convenient.




> But here's what you don't seem to comprehend, since you reject spiritual evidence... Not everyone sees things the same as you. Spiritual nature can indeed be tested and confirmed spiritually, by those who accept and acknowledge spiritual nature. Spiritual nature does not exist outside the natural realm, it is indeed a part of nature itself, you just don't recognize it. There is no physical attributes because it is spiritual, it defies logic for there to be physical or material evidence for it, because then, it would be physical and not spiritual in nature. You continue to demand illogical evidence.
> 
> Even a complete retard, should be able to realize, our species has not mistakenly adopted a delusional attribute for all of it's existence, out of fears and doubts that are not present anywhere else in nature.



How convenient. In order to believe in "spiritual nature", I have to believe in "spiritual nature". I suppose the same could be said for "magic", gods, Leprechauns and fairies. Similarity, and to borrow your completely silly delusion sputtered as follows:
"There is no physical attributes because it is spiritual, it defies logic for there to be physical or material evidence for it, because then, it would be physical and not spiritual in nature. You continue to demand illogical evidence".

Rarely have I seen greater absurdity, such utter incoherence and less meaningful prattle.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from such perceptions as gods, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of more serious consideration.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against science rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing.




> I have defined spiritual nature, numerous times. It is NOT supernatural, it is very natural. Humans have connected to spiritual nature for all of their existence, that is evidence enough that it exists, and it's hard to argue with the results of human spirituality. Now, religious incarnations of god, is a different debate. I've made no claim that any particular incarnation of god exists, because I don't know. Throughout the 2,200+ posts in this thread, I have certainly defended my argument, mostly against people who want to conflate religion and spirituality and make this into a religious debate. The fact that I refuse to submit to your demands to define a specific god you can attack, is frustrating the bejesus out of you. It's making you spew unreasonable shit and repeat yourself.
> 
> Now... Where the hell is all your evidence of chemical reactions and wild neurons in humans brains that are vastly different from other upper primates, which caused man to imagine a delusion for all of our existence, without which, we could have never achieved what we have? I'm not seeing that in your posts, I see you dodging this, and insisting on "because I say so" as your basis for argument.



I see it as tragically comic that you insist on arguing a viciously circular claim. We are to accept your claims to mysticism because you believe your claims are true. 

I found the "chemical reactions and wild neurons", comment to be a bit on the juvenile side. Your lack of a science vocabulary seems to coincide with a lack of ability to understand medical science. I addressed this previously and would suggest you first acquaint yourself with the subject matter before arguing against something you know nothing of. 

As I noted previously, you utterly contradicted yourself regarding human vs. primate brain structure and the ascension of human sentience.  Our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants --yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. 

What I find amusing is your continued insistence that some mumbo-jumbo you call "spiritual nature" is to be taken seriously.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 5, 2013)

But



Boss said:


> ... religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection


Playing language games.
**{"spiritual"} = {"religious"}


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> spiritual evidence...*



Subjective proof!!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> I've made no claim that any particular incarnation of god exists



Not "any particular god"



Boss said:


> Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god.



Just some particular god: "proof that god exists".

Language games.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god.





Boss said:


> It is NOT supernatural, it is very natural. Humans have connected to spiritual nature



"supernatural" <> "natural"
"spiritual" = "nature"
"supernatural" <> "spiritual"*

-------
Except;

Google("spiritual supernatural natural")
Supernatural - Wikipedia ...
Wiki-
"not subject to the laws of physics"
*"In philosophy, popular culture and fiction, the *supernatural* is associated with the paranormal, *religions* and occultism."

"In *Catholicism*... the *Supernatural* Order is the gratuitous production, by *God*..."

"...*"spiritual facts*...referred to as *supernatural* by those who specifically preclude the extrinsic concurrence of God..."

"supernatural"="religious"
{"Catholicism","Supernatural"} ={"God"}

----
Also;
Google("Natural Spiritualism")*
Wiki-
"Book searches for the two find no usage for Naturalistic Spirituality before 1956[1] whereas *Spiritual Naturalism* may have first been proposed by *Joris-Karl Huysmans* in 1895 in his book En Route - Huysmans was the first to defect to 'Spiritual Naturalism' and eventually to a form of *mysticism*;"*he was followed by Maupassant: and In 'En Route' Huysmans started upon the creation of what he called Spiritual Naturalism, that is, *realism* applied to the story of a *soul*. ....

Google("natural law in spiritual")
*Natural Law in the Spiritual World*

Author: Drummond, Henry (1851-1897)
As well as an *evangelist* and missionary, Henry Drummond was a naturalist. He studied physical and mathematical science before dedicating himself fully to *Christian ministry*. In 1877, he became a lecturer on natural science at the *Free Church College*. He used his position to share his faith as often as he could. While he studied in preparation for his lectures, Drummond wrote Natural Law in the Spiritual World, in which he explores how the world of *religion and spirituality* relates to the physical world. He argued that the disconnect between the *spiritual and the physical* was entirely illusory and that faith was by no means in conflict with science. Written just a few decades after Darwins landmark On the Origin of Species, Drummonds reconciliation of the theory of evolution with Gods purposes ranks among the most important and influential books concerning *Christian faith* and scientific progress.*

{"Spiritual Naturalism","Joris-Karl Huysmans","mysticism"}

{"Natural Law in the Spiritual World","evangelist","Christian ministry","religion and spirituality","spiritual and the physical","Christian faith"}


-----
Ergo;

"supernatural"="spiritual"="religion"="Christian"="God"

"supernatural"="spiritual"

------

Conclusion;

If we just string enough terms together with fuzzy definitions such that they overlap, eventually we can get the "logical proof" that we want.**It's just a set theory thing where sets overlap.

a is an element of A and B. *A is like B. c is an element of B and C. B is like C. *Ergo, A is like C.

Do not highlight where*b is not an element of A and B. *A is not like B. b is an element of B and C. B is not like C. *And A <>B <> C.

Ergo, A = C

At best;
All we have to do is say spiritual is natural, that God is natural, therefore physical. *Just ignore the "subject to the laws of physics" part. Then we can say "subjective" is "objective" and we have proof. *Afterall, people are naturally subjective and spiritual.

At worst;
The language is meaningless as there is no distinction between "natural", "physical", "objective", "spiritual", "subjective" which means words can be strung together in any *manner we want and everything is "logical"

Why not, afterall subjective natural, nature is physical, physical is objective. *So, subjective is objective. Formal proofs and informal proofs ar proofs therefore informal proofs are formal*proofs.

And that is, at least, my subjective opinion which by definition cannot be prove wrong and is therefore right. *Given that subjective is objective as subjective is natural, then it is naturally physical and a lack of proof of not being subject to the laws of nature is a failure to prove what is already locigally deduced.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 5, 2013)

> *Boss:* You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common.* Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality*, which has always existed in man.




*Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality ...*


it is religion, the "Bible" that negates spirituality by substituting a false premise as you have of a primacy for mankind to the exclusion of all other forms of life ... 

spirituality is life within the physical form.

Boss the Thumper - immorality ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


only in the minds of humans with the exception of writing film or video.
the odd thing about that is humans usually remember those pov's more often then the total event...


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > spiritual evidence...*
> ...



Whew... did you get all of that out of your system up there? Nasty shit... that happens to me sometimes when I eat asparagus and drink absinthe at the same time... I break out in talking with formulas. 

Let me see if I can tackle this one in a way even you can comprehend...

*{Proof = Subjective}*

The problem here, is outlined in the first two paragraphs of the OP. As long as you continue to reject spiritual nature, you will never view the spiritual evidence as proof. See, just like you can show me physical "proof" of something you think is objective, and I can either accept it as "proof" or not, the same applies to you with spiritual evidence. Proof is ALWAYS subjective, it relies on you acknowledging the evidence is actual proof. 

To illustrate this, let's look at the O.J. Simpson trial... The prosecution really believed they presented objective proof that he did it, but the jury did not share the prosecution's view of the evidence, they subjectively decided it wasn't proof. 

There is no semantics games or tricks being played here, it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence. If you don't accept spiritual evidence, you can never acknowledge it as proof of anything. However, those who can accept spiritual evidence, find the proof is overwhelming.


----------



## numan (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> > In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?
> 
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, does it matter if some people believe Mt. Rushmore is the result of nature instead of the product of design? Does it matter that we have strong and compelling evidence it was carved by men, and not some bizarre phenomenon found nowhere else in nature?


Are you *FINALLY* getting to the Argument from Design? !!

.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?
> ...


had a feeling it was going that way.
it presupposes even more then the original post.. and that's goin' some.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > *Boss:* You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common.* Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality*, which has always existed in man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like your posts, Breeze, they really make a man think. It is such a refreshing change from the typical empty-headed rhetoric normally seen in these types of threads, and I can appreciate that. 

I think you make a brilliant point, that ALL life is spiritual. I have no argument against that, but it's apparent that humans happen to possess the ability to connect to spiritual nature through human spirituality, which other living things lack. 

Now, my mentioning of "immorality" is not a personal judgment, just a suggested reason why Hollie is so hung up on religion, and unable to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I don't know that is the reason, which is why I prefaced the comment with "probably." 

The whole moral/immoral thing as it relates to my personal spiritual beliefs, has more to do with disrupting the positive energy flow of spiritual nature. Many things that man has defined as "immoral" are simply disruptive to the spiritual energy, and results in bad things happening. Not all things, but many. It is certainly the case that man has made things "immoral" which have little or no effect on spiritual energy flow, men are often wrong. 

This goes back to the point, God does not necessarily have to be a judgemental god, or one that even gives a crap what we do as humans. People like Hollie can't comprehend this, because to them, the word "god" automatically means The God of Abe...the Bible God. I have left the question of what type of god open, because I have no evidence to support any particular incarnation of god. It's even a possibility that "god" is a physical entity, as in, an alien life form from another galaxy. We simply recognize the connection as spiritual because we have yet to figure it out. Just throwing out this possibility, not saying that is the case. In any event, humans seem to have the ability to connect to some force greater than self, and always have. We do not have to define it specifically, in order to determine it does exist.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > *Boss:* You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common.* Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality*, which has always existed in man.
> ...



  How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death?  How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?

How do you KNOW so fucking much about the Great UNknown?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 5, 2013)

Moral is as moral does... Morality is what the Monkey with the biggest stick says it is.  

This is why Civil Law MUST trump Religious Law whenever the two come in conflict.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


ARE you mad ..he's the great and powerful OZ..!~


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I really don't understand how you people extrapolate this stuff from what I say. However, since the subject has been raised regarding intelligent design, I don't believe you have offered a better explanation for origin of life or creation of the universe. I don't accept Abiogenesis as a theory, because of several reasons, most notably, the incredible number of variations on the theory itself. And.. even IF we break it all down to the simplest explanations, there is no explanation for why properties of elements react the way they did. Natural forces of wind and water did not create Mt. Rushmore, but even if they did, it does not negate god or intelligence in design. God controls nature, god caused the Big Bang, and you haven't proven otherwise, because you can't. 

Finally, there is no presupposition here, I don't have a hidden religious agenda. You people seem to be very paranoid about this, and I have addressed it repeatedly throughout this thread. I am not a Christian, I am not a religious person. Religious people call me an Atheist because I don't subscribe to their incarnations of god. Now... here's the deal, if I really AM a Christian trying to play tricks on you, then I have inadvertently condemned myself to eternal damnation by denying Christ. Why in the hell would I do this, just to trick you? It makes no sense at all. If I really were a Christian believer in the Bible, I would have NO inclination to deny it, and I would spend a lot of time defending and supporting the Biblical incarnation of god in this thread, that's not happening. You can cajole me and ridicule all you like, but you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death?  How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?
> 
> How do you KNOW so fucking much about the Great UNknown?



I don't know, which is why I prefaced my remark with "apparently." We don't see dolphins practicing spiritual rituals and worshiping, or dogs, or any other creature. This doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but we have no evidence to support it. As best we can tell, humans are the only living things that make a spiritual connection to something greater than self, it is the source of inspiration which enabled us to emerge above all other species of life.


----------



## numan (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death?  How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?
> ...


_[emphasis added]_

Humans "have emerged above alll other species of life" ? !!

Whence derives such a quaint and seemingly absurd notion?  Has it been revealed to you from the realm of Spiritual Reality with which you are so intimately connected?

I don't know about dolphins and dogs, but my cat certainly practises spiritual rituals and worship. When he wakes up from a nap, he always genuflects and prostrates himself to the Whiskered Deity as devoutly as any Moslem -- and he is convinced that there is a causal connection between him going outside in the morning and his breakfast appearing when he comes back in !!
.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death?  How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?
> ...


What nonsense. Your goofy "spiritual connection" canard had nothing to do with the ascension of humans on the planet. It was our relative intelligence and our ability to change the environment, to develop industry and to make meaningful choices that affect our lives.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death?  How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?
> ...



I'm still not buying the 'fact' of a spiritual connection.  I'll admit to the possibilities, but I think that the probabilities are more likely that Sentience, and the ability to extrapolate from the deaths of others our own frailty spawned spirituality and religion, not the other way around.

It's actually pretty easy to see how God was created in the image of Man.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Subjective v objective



But can you objectively evaluate your own objectivity or it in and of itself subjective based on  your own experiences, values and mental state?

I think objectivity is an ideal goal but rarely attained by individuals.


BTW, do you think human memory exists? You seem to keep missing that question somehow, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> But
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dear Gawd, spiritual does not equate to religion.

Reminder: do you think human memories exist?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > spiritual evidence...*
> ...



A subjective opinion on that, ifitzme.

Do you think human memories exist?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god.
> ...



That is bullshit and you know it.

Why do you waste everyones time, except to entertain your fellow nihilists?

BTW, do you think that human memory exists?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So if human memories exist only in the mind of the person, then does it really exist? Does pi really exist? Does the National Debt really exist? Does love really exist?



daws101 said:


> the odd thing about that is humans usually remember those pov's more often then the total event...



lol, there are a great many oddities to humanity, and that is a good thing.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Because they don't consider?




AVG-JOE said:


> How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?



I have seen some Democrats pray, so I guess its plausible for dogs to pray too, though I have never seen it.



AVG-JOE said:


> How do you KNOW so fucking much about the Great UNknown?



If he knows it, then how can it be unknown?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Because most of them don't give a flying fuck about the discussion. They are so locked into their own hubris they cant imagine possibly being wrong. They are just so damned smart, how could they be wrong?  /s



Boss said:


> Finally, there is no presupposition here, I don't have a hidden religious agenda. You people seem to be very paranoid about this, and I have addressed it repeatedly throughout this thread. I am not a Christian, I am not a religious person. Religious people call me an Atheist because I don't subscribe to their incarnations of god. Now... here's the deal, if I really AM a Christian trying to play tricks on you, then I have inadvertently condemned myself to eternal damnation by denying Christ. Why in the hell would I do this, just to trick you? It makes no sense at all. If I really were a Christian believer in the Bible, I would have NO inclination to deny it, and I would spend a lot of time defending and supporting the Biblical incarnation of god in this thread, that's not happening. You can cajole me and ridicule all you like, but you're barking up the wrong tree.



You have them paranoid about whether they have to get more astroturfers on the thread to shout you down and k ill the thread with red herrings and bullshit.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > How do you KNOW that dolphins don't consider a life after death?  How do you KNOW that dogs don't pray?
> ...



Another absurd *ASSUMPTION* based upon *NOTHING* but your own beliefs. But for the sake of amusement let's put it to the test. Dinosaurs emerged as the dominate life form on the planet for millions of years. Under *YOUR* idiotic rationale they must have had a "spiritual connection" to your deity too. Given that immortality is one of the attributes of your God and he would have been around when the dinosaurs were worshiping him via their "spiritual connection" does this mean that your God is a reptile?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 5, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



They don't consider?  

How the fuck could you possibly know what goes through the mind of AVG-DOLPHIN in this here and now?

___________________


If he, or any other Monkey, says that they *know* what happens after death, I call 'bullshit!'  The most any Monkey is allowed on the subject is an opinion.

Fortunately or not, it needn't be an _original_ opinion.



`​


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


there is no evidence either way for the existence of god or Id.
it what is called a wash.
on the other hand your concept of god is slightly different from the Christian deity but it's is still a belief  with nothing but  vague emotionally based stories to bolster it.
to any believer it appears real enough. that doesn't prove it is.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


if it's a waste of time, why the fuck do you keep replying, are you this stupid everyday or do you take weekends off?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


yes in the mind it does but only there everything else a crude facsimile of them.
Pi is a construct so by definition it only exists as an idea.
the national debt is also a construct  all money earned or owed is .
credit cards and electronic transfers are far easier to use then a heard of sheep or a bushel of corn.
love is a chemical reaction as we are 99% chemical that should be no surprise to any one.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 5, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
you, because failing and unnecessary political shots are all you seem to do. . with some occasional brownnosing for flavor.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



So which system of cognitive thought begins with anything other than axioms?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 6, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The scientific method for one since it always begins with a hypothesis.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 6, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Because everything that can rationally consider a situation, problem or question, is  also capable of speaking complex sentences in some fashion. Dolphins don't so they don't.



AVG-JOE said:


> If he, or any other Monkey, says that they *know* what happens after death, I call 'bullshit!'  The most any Monkey is allowed on the subject is an opinion.
> 
> Fortunately or not, it needn't be an _original_ opinion.



That isn't true either. Monkeys don't have opinions but people do.

And there is plenty of documentation of near death experiences to know something does happen. There are NDE where the person in question who experienced the effect had 1) no blood in their head, 2) no pulse, 3) no functioning brain, 4) a room temperature body, and 5) their eyes taped shut. And yet they claimed to see and could describe various instrument used on them in surgery and the temporary presence of people who came into the surgery after the NDE person was out and left before they were started on revival.

And the fact that something true isn't 'original' tends to support its truthfulness, actually.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



So how does 'science' know that the phenomena of the universe is always capable of being expressed in human conceptual symbols such as language or mathematics?

How does a scientist know that these phenomena are not true in one place, but not true elsewhere? Or in a different period of time?

How does a scientist determine cause in a situation that is outside our time-space existence?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not everything is a waste of time, though some specific cases are.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Love is more than just a chemical reaction as it is not yet accurately described by chemistry. Some people fall in love with people who are fat, or ugly or just reprehensible. Love has chemistry involved, but it is not the mere result of chemistry and the variance is so large, chemistry will never fully describe love or take its wide variance into account.


And as to these things like pi and the national debt only 'existing in the mind or as an idea', how is that existence different from the physical existence of an object in terms of it being part of reality?

Pi will never change, so is it any less real than what makes a can a can or a nail a nail?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Then you plainly are not reading my posts with an open mind, because though the elements you observe are in there, true, that is not all that is in my  posts thus far.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2013)

> really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.



I missed this little gem. Daws, I assure you, I am not the least bit agitated. I am at peace with my spiritual self, you are the one who seems agitated to me. 

This brings up another aspect regarding spirituality, the people who are connected spiritually, are happier, more content, mentally stable, healthier, and less likely to be addicted to alcohol and drugs or commit suicide.


----------



## numan (Jun 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> > really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
> 
> 
> I missed this little gem. Daws, I assure you, I am not the least bit agitated. I am at peace with my spiritual self, you are the one who seems agitated to me.
> ...


And that is the reason, for centuries, they have been helling around the world murdering and torturing people for their opinions, forcing people to agree with them, standing in the way of education and reason, and filling the mental wards and streets with people afflicted with religious mania?
.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 6, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
> ...




- isn't that prefaced not by Spiritualist but by the pseudo as Bibelist and Similar inebriated by self-serving Text - Tree(s) of Forbidden Fruits rather than to a connection greater than self ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 6, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


no...ever heard the term the spirit moved me ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> > really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Strange that someone who claims not to be "agitated" and "at peace" with his "spiritual self" has to make such frequent use of profanities. 

Once again you  your own hole ever deeper with your tissue of lies.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
> ...


imo it's not the profanities but the walls of text that give him away .
or maybe he drinks too many Starbucks macho grandes ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The profanities expose his frustration that no one is buying his drivel. The endless screeds are more to convince himself that there is some "justification" for his nonsense. He strikes me as someone who suffers from an addictive personality disorder so you could be right about the caffeine overdosing.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
> ...



I use profanities for effect, which obviously works, hence your response. 

Remember, I don't believe in god of religion, I believe in god of nature. My god doesn't frown upon use of profanities. So sorry that your self-righteous piety doesn't work on me.. go attack a Christian with it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> imo it's not the profanities but the walls of text that give him away .
> or maybe he drinks too many Starbucks macho grandes ?



Okay, so now whenever someone thoroughly explains their views, that is an indication they are clueless? To bad my "walls of text" are too high for your stupid ass to climb or tear down. I guess you'll just have to sit down and play with your fellow monkey, Dorito, and pretend you are somebody.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > really from my pov the only posters that appear to be agitated or you and boss.
> ...



I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Christianity, as I understand it, is a religion of acceptance, it can't be "forced upon you" by other Christians. You have to accept that Jesus is your savior, and if you don't, you can never be a Christian. But religion is a distraction in this debate, as you and other repeatedly demonstrate. Religions are the manifestation of human spiritual connection, and actually serve to prove my point, that humans DO spiritually connect to something. Perhaps they get it wrong, perhaps they don't fully understand the spiritual nature they connect to, but they most certainly DO make some connection, and always have.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> The profanities expose his frustration that no one is buying his drivel. The endless screeds are more to convince himself that there is some "justification" for his nonsense. He strikes me as someone who suffers from an addictive personality disorder so you could be right about the caffeine overdosing.



Nonsense. You don't accept my argument and call it "drivel" because you refuse to accept spiritual nature. You and daws aren't "everyone" by a LONG shot. In fact, you are only among the 5% of humans who are Nihilistic, so very clearly in the minority when it comes to spirituality. Of course, I tried to save you a lot of time and trouble in the OP, by pointing this out, that you will never be able to answer the thread question because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence. I never expected anything I had to say would change your closed minds, so why would you think I am frustrated? I think it is hilarious you believe I am frustrated, almost as hilarious as you jumping on your moral high horse, and chastising me for cursing. Next thing you know, you'll be lamenting how I am destined for hell because I've been mean to you. lol


----------



## daws101 (Jun 6, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > imo it's not the profanities but the walls of text that give him away .
> ...


another one of the million false assumptions you'll make today.
I have no problem being somebody I was born that way.
you on the other hand must have a problem with not being somebody. trying to make up for not being one of the cool kids ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, you were born a spiritual somebody, you have succeeded in becoming a Nihilist nobody... worm food in the making. I never needed or wanted to be one of the cool kids, but then, I never lost my spiritual connection. When you have no spiritual connection, being one of the cool kids is important and meaningful. This is why you place so much stock in such things. The problem with being a cool kid is this, one day you wake up and you're not a kid or cool anymore, you are just pathetic. #wellonyourway


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 8, 2013)

and this confirms god? no. this only confirms human existential insecurity, and the  emotional need for a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable. That's all you have.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> and this confirms god? no. this only confirms human existential insecurity, and the  emotional need for a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable. That's all you have.



Since there is no example or physical evidence that any other living thing emotionally needs a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable, it is reasonable to believe this stems from our ability to spiritually connect. You have not demonstrated otherwise, and you can't. 

You keep wanting to point to these things that our spirituality causes, as the reasons for our spirituality, and you literally have to abandon scientific principles to do so.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > and this confirms god? no. this only confirms human existential insecurity, and the  emotional need for a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable. That's all you have.
> ...



What nonsense. Much of what was unanswerable, (natural phenomenon), was the cause and motivation for humans to invent various gawds. Fear and superstition was the engine that drove the invention of gawds. And yes, you literally have to abandon scientific principles to believe that Zeus is the capo of a syndicate of other gawds ruling natural events.

Thus, gawd(s), Jinn, devils, the risen from the dead, etc., etc., replete with flying winged men in nightgowns, fat naked babies playing harps, chariots of fire cruising through the clouds, that seas part and books predict the end of the world? All the now thoroughly discredited excuses to commit our logic and reason to be discarded in favor because I say so.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



If what you are claiming were true, you could show us other similar examples of this in other upper primates. We find no such example. No other living thing has needed to invent something to explain the unexplained or remedy fear....EVER.... not to ANY degree, not a single solitary instance... Zippo, Zilch, NADDA! But here you are, in spite of science itself, making the claim that humans, the most advanced and intelligent species of all.... just HAD to do this, in order to explain the unexplained and comfort our fears. 

Now as you can see, sweetie... I am not refuting you with "because I say so," I am stipulating some very real scientific evidence that you've failed to produce to support your claim. So stop lying to people about my position. You can either refute my argument with scientific evidence, or you can't. If you're going to continue to lie and insist upon an explanation that does not comport with science, I am going to continue to point it out.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



More nonsensical claims. It is the human attribute of relative intelligence that allows for the conception of abstract ideas such as supernaturalism.

It&#8217;s laughable that you demand others refute your nonsense claims with &#8220;scientific evidence&#8221;  when you advance your argument with the qualifier that your claims are not open to scientific evidence.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your fallacious premise has *NEVER *been established in the first place so there is nothing to refute. Until you can *PROVE* that your bogus "spiritual connection" actually exists and that there is a deity on the other end of it all you have is mumbo-jumbo superstition. The physical measurable meditative trance state of mind does *NOT* prove that there is any "spiritual connection" and it most certainly does *NOT* prove that there is any imaginary entity on the other end of it either. So the onus remains on *YOU* to provide the proof but no one is holding their breath waiting. This is your cue to do your little shuck and jive act and pretend that you did it all in the OP and that only fools who buy your snake oil are capable of recognizing it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Humans are clearly not born "spiritual', ie:, religious. 

Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. 

People rarely chose their theistic beliefs and they rarely apply very hard standards to those beliefs. Religious belief tends to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nope, you've gotten it backwards, which is why you can't cite another similar example in all of nature. Spiritual connection is what gives humans the attribute of relative intelligence that allows for the conception of abstract thought regarding spiritual nature. Our fears of death and need to explain the unknown, stem FROM our attribute of spiritual connection. THIS is why it's not found anywhere else in nature, nothing else is spiritually connected.  

You can laugh all you like, I never have stated that my claims are not open to scientific evidence. The very OP of this thread, includes some very fundamental scientific evidence, as does my point here in this post. Coupled with overwhelming spiritual evidence, it makes a definitive case for the existence of god. You can never realize this because you reject spiritual evidence. You continue to insist it is "supernatural" when science shows it has been a part of human nature for all of our existence. It's "supernatural" to you, because you don't believe in it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Your fallacious premise has *NEVER *been established in the first place so there is nothing to refute. Until you can *PROVE* that your bogus "spiritual connection" actually exists and that there is a deity on the other end of it all you have is mumbo-jumbo superstition. The physical measurable meditative trance state of mind does *NOT* prove that there is any "spiritual connection" and it most certainly does *NOT* prove that there is any imaginary entity on the other end of it either. So the onus remains on *YOU* to provide the proof but no one is holding their breath waiting. This is your cue to do your little shuck and jive act and pretend that you did it all in the OP and that only fools who buy your snake oil are capable of recognizing it.



I did prove spiritual connection exists. There is at least 70,000 years of evidence, and billions of testimonials. I have not mentioned a deity, I don't know why you continue to insist this is part of my argument, other than your inability to be honest. I've corrected you numerous times, and you just continue to lie about this. 

I even pointed out that you won't acknowledge spiritual evidence, therefore, the question can not be answered for you. All you keep doing, is proving my point, and demanding illogical evidence that is never going to exist. I've admitted that as well, I can't prove god exists to you, it's not possible to give you the evidence you need. That doesn't mean my argument is invalid, or that god doesn't really exist.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Humans are clearly not born "spiritual', ie:, religious.
> 
> Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> 
> People rarely chose their theistic beliefs and they rarely apply very hard standards to those beliefs. Religious belief tends to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select.



Do you not see what you continue to do? You begin talking about spiritualism, but before you can get through a paragraph, you have conflated spirituality with theism or religion. 

Let me ask you this, Hollie... Have you always been a Nihilist? Has this been your belief since birth?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Your fallacious premise has *NEVER *been established in the first place so there is nothing to refute. Until you can *PROVE* that your bogus "spiritual connection" actually exists and that there is a deity on the other end of it all you have is mumbo-jumbo superstition. The physical measurable meditative trance state of mind does *NOT* prove that there is any "spiritual connection" and it most certainly does *NOT* prove that there is any imaginary entity on the other end of it either. So the onus remains on *YOU* to provide the proof but no one is holding their breath waiting. This is your cue to do your little shuck and jive act and pretend that you did it all in the OP and that only fools who buy your snake oil are capable of recognizing it.
> ...



Once again you are forced to resort to name calling because you cannot prove any of your blathering nonsense. Even the term "spiritual connection" exposes your drivel. What is on the other end of this magical "connection" of yours since you are denying the existence of a deity? (The one you pretended to "prove existed" in your OP.) There can't be a "connection" if there is *NOTHING* to connect to on the other end. So by denying that there is a deity you are essentially invalidating your entire premise. Great job of shooting yourself in the foot again! Your inconsistent illogical babbling is ludicrous.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Ironic given that you accuse Hollie of what you are doing in the following sentences. 





> *Our fears of death* and need to explain the unknown, stem FROM our attribute of spiritual connection. THIS is why it's not found anywhere else in nature, nothing else is spiritually connected.


So under your latest insanity no other mammals have a "fear of death"? Your absurdity knows no bounds.


> You can laugh all you like, I never have stated that my claims are not open to scientific evidence. The very OP of this thread,* includes some very fundamental scientific evidence,* as does my point here in this post.


 Hogwash! 





> Coupled with overwhelming spiritual evidence, it makes *a definitive case for the existence of god*.


A deity whose very existence you just *DENIED* in your other post. 



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> *I have not mentioned a deity, * I don't know why you continue to insist this is part of my argument, other than your inability to be honest. I've corrected you numerous times, and you just continue to lie about this.



Only one doing any *LYING* around here is *YOU* as proven by your baseless claim for the existence of your deity followed by your denial that you are even mentioning your deity. Are you incapable of grasping that what you wrote in one post is directly contradicting what you wrote in another? No wonder you have zero credibility.



> You can never realize this because you reject spiritual evidence. You continue to insist it is "supernatural" when *science shows it has been a part of human nature for all of our existence*. It's "supernatural" to you, because you don't believe in it.



So now you are alleging that a mere 70k years is equal to "all of our existence"? Interesting how you choose to ignore the scientific evidence of mankind's existence prior to the last 70k years. Doesn't that evidence count too or are you selectively ignoring it because it refutes your baseless contention?


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



LOL... where did I call you a name, Dorito? There is nothing I have said that is "blathering nonsense" at all. We have 70k years of history that can't be disputed, humans spiritually connect to something. You are making the false assumption that any such connection would necessarily involve a "deity" and that isn't an argument I have made. There is nothing "magical" about the connection, humans of all walks from all kinds of cultures are able to spiritually connect, and have done so as long as humans have existed. 

As for "god" mentioned in the OP, that has also been explained to you numerous times. I am using "god" as a metaphoric representation for whatever spiritual force humans are connecting with. I personally believe this is a form of energy that we can't measure with physical science at this time, and probably won't ever be able to. It is a reality outside the material world, that we have the ability to connect to, while no other living things can. This is why we are special among all living things. This is why our unique attributes are unmatched in nature and evolution can't explain them. You can call this nonsense or babbling, but even Plato and Aristotle argued there was a spiritual nature. 

What you believe, is not supported by science or Darwin. I've demonstrated this, because you can't give me examples of spiritual behavior in any other living thing. The "reasons" you claim spirituality exists, are not supportable by science, and contradict Darwin. You cling to the fact that spiritual nature doesn't provide physical evidence, which is totally illogical. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence which is overwhelming, and has been around as long as humans have. I can't change your mind, I admitted that in the OP, it's not debatable. You have closed your mind and rejected your own spiritual nature, and you will reject science and everything else, to avoid acknowledging it. We can continue this discussion for another month.. a year... a decade... you are still going to reject spiritual nature, and I get that. It's why I made the point in the OP, first two paragraphs. 

What's interesting, is that you spend so much time here in this thread, hurling one insult after another, ridiculing me, throwing out sarcastic ad homs and denigrations, like you get something out of that... cathartic almost. Is that what this is about to you? A need you have to reinforce your disbeliefs that is so strong, you can't help but continue with this? It's what is seems like to me. If that's the case, I think you need to really ask yourself, are you certain? Or are you just trying to convince yourself of this?


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

> So under your latest insanity no other mammals have a "fear of death"? Your absurdity knows no bounds.



No other animal or form of life, contemplates death, worries about what happens when it dies, or has any conceptualization of death, other than universal survival instinct and preservation of life. If you can demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

> A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.



God does not automatically have to be a "deity."  This seems to be where you are hung up. I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature and a spiritual energy which I refer to as "god" but which I don't believe has the qualities of any "deity" suggested by religion or theology. The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you. I'm sorry that your brain apparently cannot comprehend such a god, but that's not my problem, is it?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> > So under your latest insanity no other mammals have a "fear of death"? Your absurdity knows no bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> No other animal or form of life, contemplates death, worries about what happens when it dies, or has any conceptualization of death, other than universal survival instinct and preservation of life. If you can demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.



What you are describing is human sentience and is a function of relative intelligence and complexity of the human brain. It has nothing to do with your gods.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Humans are clearly not born "spiritual', ie:, religious.
> ...



Oh no, Boss. You've been reduced to pointless question begging argumentation.

So, Boss, is it true you that have been arrested and jailed for trading sexual favors to men on the street in exchange for vials of crack cocaine?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> > So under your latest insanity no other mammals have a "fear of death"? Your absurdity knows no bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> No other animal or form of life, contemplates death, worries about what happens when it dies, or has any conceptualization of death, other than universal survival instinct and preservation of life. If you can demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.



The above does nothing to support your claim to gods or something you call "spirituality" but can't define.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> 
> 
> 
> God does not automatically have to be a "deity."  This seems to be where you are hung up. I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature and a spiritual energy which I refer to as "god" but which I don't believe has the qualities of any "deity" suggested by religion or theology. The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you. I'm sorry that your brain apparently cannot comprehend such a god, but that's not my problem, is it?



The "god" you believe in, as you described "it", sounds like "nothing'ness". Why continue with the _70,000 years_, nonsense when you're describing _70,000 years_ of nothing?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> 
> 
> 
> God does not automatically have to be a "deity."  This seems to be where you are hung up. I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature and a spiritual energy which I refer to as "god" but which I don't believe has the qualities of any "deity" suggested by religion or theology. The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you. I'm sorry that your brain apparently cannot comprehend such a god, but that's not my problem, is it?



So living organisms are not a product of creation they just formed through natural processes ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> ...



They formed by magical processes. 

The magic is described by four words: "the gawds did it".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you admit life is a miracle if there is no creator ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No. I admit there is no evidence of a "creator". 

Life has no need for either miracles or gawds.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > So under your latest insanity no other mammals have a "fear of death"? Your absurdity knows no bounds.
> ...



Sorry, but nature doesn't support your argument. Other animals certainly have sentience and brains which function exactly like homo sapiens. Why don't we see chimps and other upper primates exhibiting crude forms of spiritualism? Why do other living things, who are less intelligent than humans, not have a need to create imaginary security blankets or placebos for knowledge they lack? More importantly, why has this imaginary phenomenon persisted in our species to the same degree, after science has explained away every 'unknown' of ancient man? 

We can keep this up, I don't mind repeating the same thing over and over again until you get it. I am not going to get tired and give up, if that's what you think. This is the third time you've made this very claim, and you've yet to support it with any scientific evidence, and I have refuted it with science every time. It doesn't matter to me, we can do it 100 more time or 1000 more times, I have nothing better to do.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Scientists are working hard to produce life if they figure it out or not why would you rule out whether God was needed  ? Life was kick started by something and it makes sense to me it was a superior intelligence to man.

Man is trying to reproduce what the designer has already done.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Are you afraid to answer my question? It's pretty straightforward. You have articulated a belief that no spiritual nature exists, therefore, you are a Nihilist. I am sorry if that label offends you, but that is your professed belief. I simply asked if you had always been a Nihilist. A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So Boss are you in to spiritualism ? because it is defined as a religion.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > So under your latest insanity no other mammals have a "fear of death"? Your absurdity knows no bounds.
> ...



But I have defined spirituality numerous times in this thread. Here, I am asking you for the science to back up your claim that humans invented spirituality to cope with "fear of death," and as we see, you offer nothing. You wouldn't be trying to argue "because I say so" would you? Because, that's a no-no, right? 



Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> ...



It's not nonsense, it's recorded history. Humans have spiritually connected for as long as humans have existed. 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual connection, or at least acknowledge possibility of some spiritual existence. I don't believe that qualifies as "nonsense" but what you and about 5% of the population espouse, is indeed nonsensical. It defies science and Darwinism and relies on faith in disbelief. 

My spiritual god is certainly not "nothingness" from my perspective. It is the source of my inspirations and strength, it is what guides my existence and life. I connect with it daily, and find it's presence all around me. It doesn't take the form of YWC's "god" or any other religious incarnation, but it does indeed exist, just as much as your mother exists.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sorry, but your are claims are demonstrably false. Other animals clearly do exhibit sentient behavior as humans do nor do they have brains which function exactly like humans. There is a reason why humans build, manufacture, create industry, etc. There is a reason why other animals do not. That is because our brains have developed in ways that are different than animals lower on the sentience / intelligence strat.

You can keep up with you claims to "spirits", gods and other things that go bump in the night but when your claims are absent verification, they're no different than other "because I say so", claims.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why are you insisting that one or more gawds _are_ needed when you make no case for any need?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss  "God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy"  If God is an energy which I believe he is would that not make God exist physically ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Oh but I think I have in the creationists thread. If there was no proper working cell formed there would be no life. There are parts of the cell that were absolutely necessary or there would be no cell that could replicate itself or even function.

It defies logic to believe that all the parts of a car could be in the same area and yet they would naturally join together to form a car. That is not even mentioning how each part for the car had to be designed.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> ...



I didn't say that, did I?  Personally, I believe spiritual nature created the universe and life, as well as physical nature itself. I just don't happen to believe the Christian incarnation of God the Creator, as depicted in The Bible. I have respect for those who have that belief, I don't dispute that it's possible, I just don't believe it personally. Now maybe when I die, I'll find out differently? If so, I will tell the God of Abraham he didn't do a very good job of convincing me, as I was spiritually connected my whole life. But I can only relate to what I am aware of personally, and that is a spiritual energy I connect with daily. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't believe in religious spiritualism, mine is a philosophical belief. I am aware of a spiritual nature around us, present in the same universe, but not material in existence. It doesn't care, because caring is a human attribute, it has no need to possess such an attribute. Does lightning care? Does it target people who sin? I don't think it does. 

That said, spiritual nature is a positive energy flow, and it works to provide positive influences in our physical existence, if we allow it and connect to it spiritually. There are things we can do to disrupt the energy, things we commonly consider "bad" things, are not conducive with the positive energy flow, and disrupting it causes negative energy which is also an influence in our physical existence. Some have said this is akin to "karma" and I guess that is probably as close as I can come to defining it for you. Do good things, and good things will happen... do bad things, and bad things will happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss  "God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy"  If God is an energy which I believe he is would that not make God exist physically ?




Spiritual energy doesn't have physical or material existence as far as we know at this time. It is a reality that co-exists in our universe with physical nature. I leave the possibility open, that we may one day discover a way to verify this spiritual energy through physics, but at this time, we can't.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I have experienced both sides of the spiritual realm the good and the evil how would you explain that ? I am sure you have as well.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss  "God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy"  If God is an energy which I believe he is would that not make God exist physically ?
> ...



"Spiritual energy" is thus "magic energy". 

It's existence is described by "magic".


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Claiming you have defined "spirituality" when you have offered nothing but your opinions is a no-no, right?



Right, but that's not what I have done here. I have offered 70k years of history and human behavior, along with the testimony of billions who came before me. That's not my opinion, it's what the evidence proves. You haven't refuted this evidence by calling it "nonsense" or "delusions" or "imagination." 



> Recorded history is one of humans inventing supernatural agents to explain natural causes. Your "spiritual god", is no different than inventions by the Greeks for some of their gods or inventions by the Romans for several of their gods.



Proving yet again, humans have always been spiritually connected, while nothing else in nature has ever been. So where did this "evolve" from? Why has it persisted as the most defining attribute of our particular species, yet not found anywhere else in nature? You claim it is the byproduct of sentience, but other animals have sentience, so it's not that. If this were true, we'd see some trace of spirituality in other upper primates, and we simply don't have any evidence whatsoever. Our "fear of death" is caused by our understanding of spiritual nature and the realization that something does exist beyond our physical realm. This is why you have trouble citing examples of other upper primates having to create security blankets and placebos for knowledge. They don't have spiritual connection and we do. 



> If your personal gods exist in your mind, then fine. I'm happy for you. I should advise you however that your personal conceptions of supernatural entities are no different than the conceptions of other supernatural entities other than what you wish to call your entities.



Spiritual nature is not supernatural. You continue to claim this without basis, because you refuse to accept the existence of spiritual nature. It is completely natural, not supernatural. It doesn't have a material existence that can be verified by physical science (at this time), but it has been a part of human nature as long as we've been humans.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hollie you clearly don't understand the spiritual realm your posts clearly demonstrate that fact.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


another one of the million false assumptions you'll make today.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Like I said, there is positive and negative spiritual energy. Both are present in our universe, and we as humans, have the capability to tap into either one.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well I would rather not tap in to the evil one lol.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What "spiritual realm" would that be?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Your fallacious premise has *NEVER *been established in the first place so there is nothing to refute. Until you can *PROVE* that your bogus "spiritual connection" actually exists and that there is a deity on the other end of it all you have is mumbo-jumbo superstition. The physical measurable meditative trance state of mind does *NOT* prove that there is any "spiritual connection" and it most certainly does *NOT* prove that there is any imaginary entity on the other end of it either. So the onus remains on *YOU* to provide the proof but no one is holding their breath waiting. This is your cue to do your little shuck and jive act and pretend that you did it all in the OP and that only fools who buy your snake oil are capable of recognizing it.
> ...


wrong! what you've presented is a speculative assumption based on function a of the brain/ mind that is not clearly understood.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The one that many of us have experienced.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are Black Holes "magic," Hollie? Up until a few years ago, we had no knowledge of these, and theorizing their existence wasn't even plausible, they appear to defy our understanding of physics. How about bacteria and viruses, are those "magical," Hollie? Up until Louis Pasteur, that was certainly the prevailing thought. They nearly ran the man out of France for suggesting things could live inside the human body. As we see, many things we've discovered, were previously thought to not be possible... magic... unbelievable... extraordinary.... yet, they actually did exist and were proven by science eventually. 

Of course, this requires you to open your mind to possibility, and when it comes to spirituality, you refuse to be open-minded. As I said before, you are determined to go to your grave disbelieving, and that is fine with me, I am not here to change your mind. I personally think, you not answering my previous question about whether you've always been a Nihilist, is very revealing. It tells me you are not really as disbelieving as you are letting on, that somewhere deep inside, you do believe in spiritual nature, you are just angry at religion and religious people who you feel like have judged you. I get that, I understand it, but it doesn't negate spirituality.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> ...


not this debunked bullshit again . shouldn't you be preparing for Armageddon?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The one with those cute, fat, naked babies playing harps?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what also makes sense to you is it Satan's world.. the earth is young ..the great flood  Noah was 600 years and the sex with your sister is ok .
you'll understand when I say you're full of shit!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss? Yet you claim that this "spiritual.... something or other" Boss? has no physical or material existence. Boss?

Boss? You're describing "magic" existence. Boss? 

It tells me that deep inside, you're just being silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



 debunked


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



LMFAOooo... Oh, okay... So we don't KNOW why humans are the only things that worship and have spiritual connection, and have had this attribute for all their existence while nothing else in nature has any inkling of it, to any degree whatsoever... it's all stuff in our complex brain that we can't explain! Well that fucking explains it all! 

It sounds like YOU are the one making a speculative assumption, and defying nature, science and Darwin, in the process.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Stereotyping again hollie.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you made no case in that better then a thousand pages thread.
oh shit! not the bogus car construction analogy again..


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If the shoe... I mean _delusion_ fits...

BTW, those cute, fat, naked babies playing harps perform under union contract in your magical realms.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another word you should learn the meaning of!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The watches weren't good enough. He'll move on to 747's next.

Has anyone told Mr. Magic that neither watches, cars nor airplanes, etc., are subject to biological reproduction?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why are you so angry daws ? some of what you mention I do believe some is merely thoughts of a twisted mind that and false accusations.

Daws according to your theory how did the earth get populated if they did not sleep with their relatives ?

I have given you my theory on how the world was populated without sleeping with relatives.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


this is one of those times when the stereotype is accurate.
you yourself are a stereotype.. own it!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So explain how biological organisms can reproduce and where this mechanism came from.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not 'magic' anymore than black holes, antimatter, dark energy... I said that we can't currently measure or verify this energy with physics and science, it is not material in existence, as far as we are aware at this time. I have no way of knowing what we don't yet know, sweetie. I'm not being silly, that's just a statement of fact here. There may well come a time when we stumble upon discovery and can confirm spiritual nature with physical science, or better yet, quantum physics, which is relatively new. It's possible. 

But to continue denying that spirituality exists, when we have thousands of years of evidence from billions of people that it certainly does exist, is laughable to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Like here you're are closed minded and do not accept rational evidence.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


once again you're assuming facts not in evidence .I too busy laughing at your stand up routine...
as always your( theories ) are false.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Most of us were introduced to the subject in 7th grade. 

However, I can understand that your madrassah may not have approached the subject in any detail. 

"_Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat"_


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



But you're not by your own reasoning right ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong as always, none of your evidence is evidence or rational so there is nothing to accept.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You avoided my question daws why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Then give me a brief summary.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong again! by experience..
if it were possible for you to look at yourself objectively you'd see that you just scream stereotype.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Sure it is you believe in chance over purposeful design.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


asked and answered


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You would be a stereotype of a very small group.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So, are we to believe that black holes, antimatter, dark energy... have no physical or material existence. With black holes for instance, I had understood that the affects of gravity could be used to confirm their existence.

Really Boss, you should email NASA and explain that "spiritual nature" could be employed to confirm astronomical phenomenon. I don't know why they need to spend as much as they do on experimentation and such nonsense.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another false assumption I don't believe...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You have never given me an answer on how the earth was populated absent of incest.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'll start with a 1950's version of Dick and Jane. 

Is there nothing on Harun Yahya's website you can refer to?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If it was not chance you believe in what was it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't know I have not visited that site but you evidently have.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false.. I have lots common traits just like everybody else. 
you on the other hand are the spokes model and ceo  of religious fanatic stereotypes.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes I have ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


asked and answered


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you say so.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Have you forgotten that you repeatedly cut and pasted from Harun Yahya and posted that nonsense in the _Creationist_, thread?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Then it didn't leave much of an impression give me a brief summary.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Why do you and hollie constantly dodge questions ?

Maybe people should just ignore the both of you.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I just did. can't get much more brief then that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't believe I have. They may have taken articles from other sites.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dodge what questions? 

Provide a summary.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what people would that be?
you make constant reference to this but  that imaginary multitude never makes the scene!
why is that?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Are you really this afraid to discuss issues ?

You make a claim, then you get called out, and then you dance.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course you have. You may have hoped you could use lies and deceit to sidestep and waffle.

Harun Yahya steals ruthlessly from Christian creationist sites so I suppose that your cutting and pasting is mined from whatever source fits your agenda. One charlatan is as good as another in the mind of the fundamentalist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Let me know when daws and Hollie are ready to defend your claims and accusations until then I must ignore your posts.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you have now you're dodging..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! you make claims I refute them...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie I have demonstrated that I can produce thoughts of my own and don't always copy and paste as you and your buddy does.

Matter of fact I have never seen you make a rebuttal or create a legitimate thought without copying and pasting.

Have a good day.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me know when daws and Hollie are ready to defend your claims and accusations until then I must ignore your posts.



Speaking of defending your claims, I guess you're hoping that your previous links 

to: http://www.living-fossils.com are not a part of your posting history?

Take a look at the link and look at the "About the Author" tab. 

Who is the author?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hold on a moment, let me get you a bigger bucket if you're gonna' bail.


living-fossils.com. Who is the author?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Let me know when daws and Hollie are ready to defend your claims and accusations until then I must ignore your posts.
> ...


damn! you beat me to it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Let me know when daws and Hollie are ready to defend your claims and accusations until then I must ignore your posts.
> ...



Yes I have posted that and it appears that is from the site you claim. Did you ever address their evidence of the fossils I don't believe so.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


who are you to judge what's legitimate?
the "your own thoughts and words ploy" is just that.. you use it when you're getting your ass handed to you.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


first you tip toe then dodge!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Harun Yahya





Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Harun Yahya as you posted. They did a good job in exposing the lack of change in fossils from the past when everything is suppose to be evolving.

Ok so I did post something from them now what ?

Are you gonna respond to the questions I asked ?

I have told you when I am wrong I can put my big boy pants on and admit it.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > and this confirms god? no. this only confirms human existential insecurity, and the  emotional need for a greater explanation to sooth the unanswerable. That's all you have.
> ...



You keep on making a truth claim about the spiritual realm actually existing, without demonstration. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE. End of thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You do a lot of dreaming daws.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Please provide a summary of the fossil evidence that you and Harun Yahya claim will support a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Harun Yahya
> 
> 
> 
> ...


bullshit you've admitted nothing.
and their so called exposing is false.. you believe it because it fits your imaginary POV.
if I recall I posted several article that debunked the shit out of it.
and you as always denied them..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How have I dodged ? why is posting that link a bad thing ? I admitted to being mistaken I never noticed at the bottom of the page it was that site I am still wondering why it was a bad thing.

You guys have never offered an explanation why so many organisms show no change after fossils being dated back some over 500 million years ago they are still the same today.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 yes I do! the difference is mine have a basis in fact.
thanks for the complement.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That was not the point of that post it was to expose the claim organisms are evolving.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


this post is a dodge! 
it's a bad thing because it's based on a false premise.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


and it was wrong...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Harun Yahya
> ...



No you didn't. According to theory things always evolve through mutations,natural selection,and large spans of time. Those organisms showed none of that. New traits for evolution to be true have to become the norm in the population and that is not what is observed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you don't believe that the earth is 500million years old.
that in and of it's self refutes your bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! it was the authors supposition based on a bias. not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



First you need to learn the theory of Neo-darwinism.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Harun Yahya
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your lack of a science vocabulary is quite evident. I suppose that is a function of limiting your knowledge to what you _want_ to believe as opposed to where the evidence leads. 

Selectively cutting and pasting from Christian creation ministries and Harun Yahya will be a guarantee that you will be forever ignorant. Those groups cater to the fundamentalist element. 

Did you know that nothing in biological evolution requires "everything is suppose to be evolving".

As it has been suggested to you on many, many occasions, you really should make an effort to understand the subject matter you are arguing against so that you can avoid making completely erroneous and uninformed comments.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


only in your dreams. the dates "applied" are the correct ones. you have no evidence proving other wise.
please don't post more bullshit about the inaccuracies of dating methods.
you believe them to be untrue because believing them would destroy your fantasy.,


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I already do..it refutes your bullshit completely


----------



## daws101 (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Harun Yahya
> ...


bump!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How is "evolutionist" refuting their own theory?

Were you aware that "evolutionist" employ many different sciences in the study of evolution? 

Even the terms you use ("evolutionist", when describing scientists - in the plural sense - from different fields), is a staple from Christian creationist ministries. I suppose you and the charlatans you are in thrall to view that as a not-so-subtle derogatory term. How stereotypical that you do nothing more than parrot the creationist ministry line as creationist form their arguments exclusively with efforts to refute evolutionary / biological science. Creationism should be renamed to "_anti-evilutionism_". It simply is nothing more than the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: New evidence that proves science wrong and proves supernatural intervention!   

Your science-loathing / Christian fundamentalist agenda causes you to promote many goofy conspiracy theories which are comical but hardly worthy of serious consideration.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

All one has to do is look at the creationists thread and see how disengenuous of the sciences you two are.

They won't have to look far at that nonsense Daws was posting  the last couple of days lol. They can even see it here.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Now this is the level of ignorance I am speaking of.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html

Now all you have to is go back from there and watch daws dance.


----------



## numan (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?


Google the *Burgess shale fossils*, you complete and utter ignoramus.

.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You were saying nitwit.


ev·o·lu·tion·ist
  [ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]  Show IPA  

noun  
1. 
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. 

2. 
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion. 

adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic.  
3. 
of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists. 

4. 
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology. 


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

Origin:  
1855&#8211;60;  evolution + -ist 

Related forms  
ev·o·lu·tion·ism, noun  

ev·o·lu·tion·is·ti·cal·ly, adverb  

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun, adjective  

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic, adjective  

non·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun 

Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

numan said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?
> ...



Why ? So you ignore the living fossils presented lol.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 8, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And The Beat goes on....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUOaNUES1g]Hooray for that Little Difference - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 8, 2013)

> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > A deity whose very existence you just DENIED in your other post.
> ...




*"spiritual energy which I (Boss) refer to as "god" ...*


how do you define Life ?

certainly you do not believe it is a combination of both positive and negative energy ?

the Living Spiritual Universe is not specifically defined ?






> *Boss:* No, you were born a spiritual somebody, you have succeeded in becoming a Nihilist nobody... worm food in the making.



... worm food in the making.


so, the Boss does believe in life past a persons last breath - for some ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Wow... It's hard to believe people who claim disbelief have spent an entire Saturday defending their disbelief. What a colossal waste of your time! Guys, look... read the OP, I said it very distinctly, you will NEVER be able to resolve the question. Don't waste any more time here, go out there and try to enjoy life and the part of nature you accept. 



Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie, as we can see, that is nowhere close to what I said. All I pointed out was, we don't currently possess ALL knowledge that can ever possibly be known. You keep calling something "magic" because there isn't scientific proof of it at this time. (actually, there is scientific and spiritual proof, you just reject the spiritual) I simply pointed out, once was the time, black holes were considered "magical" and the same with bacteria. Heck, a few hundred years ago... a mere blink in the eye of time... man thought the world was flat and Columbus was going to sail off the edge. It's backwards and mouth-breathing to sarcastically proclaim things you don't understand are "magic" and dismiss their possibility. 



newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



It's not just belief, it can be spiritually demonstrated, you just refuse to accept spiritual evidence. If it didn't exist, humans wouldn't have been able to connect with it for all their existence. 



BreezeWood said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > God does not automatically have to be a "deity."  This seems to be where you are hung up. I am a spiritualist, I believe in spiritual nature and a spiritual energy which I refer to as "god" but which I don't believe has the qualities of any "deity" suggested by religion or theology. The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you. I'm sorry that your brain apparently cannot comprehend such a god, but that's not my problem, is it?
> ...



Life is created by spiritual energy, just like the universe. You said it best, way back in the thread... All life is spiritual. 

As for afterlife, I was mostly jerking his chain, I don't know if our spirits live on, but since they aren't confined to physical nature, it's reasonable to presume they do. Death is something experienced in the physical realm. I suppose spirits can "die" or become so weak in energy as to become inconsequential, and absorbed by the rest of spiritual nature.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not surprisingly, you chose to sidestep any accounting of how evolutionary science employs disciplines from many other sciences. Evolutionary science is really the synthesis of many scientific fields (geology, biology, botany, population genetics, paleontology, microbiology,  embryology, and more).


The reason why you devote such hatred toward science and knowledge is simple: Creationists are largely Christian Fundamentalists; literalists, who take every word of the various bibles to be the true and unalterable word of the gods. Many echo the sentiments of the thankfully dead Henry Morris:

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."

_-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_


The fundies view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.

Their refutations to the demonstrated sciences are the most bizarre and contorted versions of conspiracy theories or based on misconceptions, hearsay, sloppy science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, -- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve means there is no original sin. No original sin means there is no need for salvation. No need for salvation means there is no need for their religion. This is why the fundies fight tooth and nail, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

> The fundies view evolutionary science, which *flatly contradicts the book of Genesis*, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.



How do you explain Christians who certainly believe in the Bible, yet also believe in Evolution? According to what they have told me, the biblical references of "days" in the creation story are actually misinterpreted literally. In the Hebrew original, the word was "yom" which can mean a variety of periods of time. God doesn't actually create "days and nights" until like the fourth "day" which proves the literal interpretation is incorrect. Not that I want to turn this into a theological debate, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's hard to understand how you know so little of the science you hope to denigrate.
Your description above is among the worst examples of someone who understands exactly nothing of what you are arguing against.

You make the truly mindless claim that _no evolutionary change that refutes the theory_ which is astonishingly stupid, even for you. Do you think that evolution _requires_ that organisms must change? That is not the case. Evolution is driven by species being well-adapted to their environments. Evolution does not predict the requirement of "change".

Otherwise, I think these kinds of discussions are important. They do expose the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, that creationism is truly nothing more than fundamentalist Christianity and it does demonstrate that real science has been advancing of humanity while the fundies have much to hide.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The fundies view evolutionary science, which *flatly contradicts the book of Genesis*, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain Christians who certainly believe in the Bible, yet also believe in Evolution? According to what they have told me, the biblical references of "days" in the creation story are actually misinterpreted literally. In the Hebrew original, the word was "yom" which can mean a variety of periods of time. God doesn't actually create "days and nights" until like the fourth "day" which proves the literal interpretation is incorrect. Not that I want to turn this into a theological debate, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist.



I'm not Christian so It's not up to me to offer explanations as you requested.

And no, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist. It just needs proponents who rattle on with self-refuting explanations of something they can't define except with "magic".


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Life is created by spiritual energy, just like the universe. You said it best, way back in the thread... All life is spiritual, [_because I say so -ed_].


.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.



I can't recall a single instance where you have offered science to support your claim to supernaturalism.

I understand you take issue with my reliance on science to explain the natural world, but your insistence that a spirit world exists but is not open to investigation is hardly worth serious consideration. 

Science truths are open to investigation. Your gods are not, in spite of your continued " because I say so" wailing.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.
> ...



Spiritual nature is not "supernatural" because you say so, sweetie. Spirituality has existed in humans for all their existence and is our most defining characteristic as a species. Whether you believe it's "real" or not, it is certainly a part of nature. I have no problem with you using science to explain the physical world, but you've not used science to disprove spiritual nature. The spiritual nature is indeed open to investigation if you believe in spiritual nature and accept the overwhelming spiritual evidence. You don't, so you can't.

My OP argument uses both spiritual and scientific evidence to make the case, and you simply dismiss the physical evidence and reject the spiritual evidence, on the basis that "you say so."  As I have pointed out, your "theories" of how spirituality came about, are not supported by physical nature or science. In fact, it completely defies Darwin's theories. You haven't explained why no other living thing makes spiritual connection, has no need to explain the unexplained or comfort fears of death. You can't demonstrate how this was an 'evolved' attribute, when it doesn't exist in any other living thing. All you can do is continue to insist that spiritual nature doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence and because you say so.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism.  That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.  

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism.  That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.
> 
> And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.



No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism.  That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.
> ...



How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence. 

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists. 

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You are demanding physical proof of a spiritual entity. That is simply illogical. In order to evaluate spiritual existence, you must observe spiritual evidence, but since you reject spiritual evidence, it can't be proven to you. The "science" is animal behavior, species don't adopt attributes which serve no purpose or function. Spirituality exists in humans for a reason. You rationalize that it's to explain the unknown, yet much of the unknown to ancient men has been explained and spirituality remains as prevalent as ever, so that can't be correct. You claim it is to console fears of death, but no other living thing seems to have trouble with this, or at least, not to the extent of making up things. What makes more rational sense, is that our fears of death and need to explain the unknow, stems FROM our spiritual connection, which we've always made as humans. 

You see, it's a very powerful piece of scientific evidence. Humans have this curious and unique attribute, which is our most distinct and defining attribute, no other species has this particular attribute. It has been a part of who we are since our existence. We also have accomplished unprecedented things in relation to other life forms, and continued to strongly maintain this unique attribute through it all. You explain it away as mere delusion or imagination, but you can't cite another such example in nature. I maintain that our ability to spiritually connect, is what makes us unique among all living things. You can't refute this, it defies science to do so. You argue that it's coincidental that we have this unique attribute, but the evidence is man's achievements over all other living things that don't spiritually connect. Again, Darwin and science maintain that there must be some connection between this unique attribute and the unique attributes of humanity. It doesn't comport with logic to be anything else, and it's certainly not a figment of imagination, which has lasted 70,000 years.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 Hollie you get called on your ignorance and ignore it. I do not interpret the bible literal word for word because the bible is filled with parables and and metaphors the only way to get the true meaning is to consider the whole bible to get the true meaning in some cases. You can't just read the bible you have to study it and I told you this in the creationists thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The fundies view evolutionary science, which *flatly contradicts the book of Genesis*, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain Christians who certainly believe in the Bible, yet also believe in Evolution? According to what they have told me, the biblical references of "days" in the creation story are actually misinterpreted literally. In the Hebrew original, the word was "yom" which can mean a variety of periods of time. God doesn't actually create "days and nights" until like the fourth "day" which proves the literal interpretation is incorrect. Not that I want to turn this into a theological debate, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist.



I have often said no one knows for sure how long creation took.The Hebrew word for days is an unspecified amount of time that is true. God also say's a day to God is but a 1,000 years. God does create day and night on the very first day. I am not sure what the source of light was because it talks about the sun and moon being created on the fourth day.

Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. 
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness. 
Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 

God did however say that on the fourth day that days and hours will be determined by the sun and moon. So how long the first four days were nobody knows.

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. 
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. And it was so. 
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also. 
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 
Gen 1:18  and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 
Gen 1:19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 8, 2013)

Measurable and repeatable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Hollie I have explained this to you I will do it again so there is no misunderstanding or you twisting my words.

Neo darwinism is change over time through, mutations, this is what is the mechanism for evolutionary change according to the theory ,along with natural selection. But they also throw in lots of time for good measure. We studied flies because their mutation rates plus we could induce mutations through a couple of methods. Hollie this is key pay attention all organisms experience mutations that is why they say evolution never stops get it ?

Do you believe that simpler organisms that exp higher rates of mutations and had shorter life spans oh and let's not forget reproduce much more offspring would not evolve after let's say in 300 million years ? but yet you believe the much more complex human evolved in the last 65 million years how absurd.

The only uneducated in the sciences is yourself. Now run along and find something to copy and paste you mental midget.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.
> ...



Of course you can't


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Oh peer reviews can't be wrong. like I said mental midget.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The Bible was peer reviewed


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't say they were all wrong.

Hollie this I did not know


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No it wasn't.

Is that a joke? I cannot be surprised at anything people say about the Bible these days as most are so ignorant about it.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You just did it again. You have called me a liar (when you are the one doing all of the lying) and you have used other foul names that no genuine "spiritualist" would ever use.



> *There is nothing I have said that is "blathering nonsense" at all.* We have 70k years of history that can't be disputed, humans spiritually connect to something. You are making the false assumption that any such connection would necessarily involve a "deity" and that isn't an argument I have made. There is nothing "magical" about the connection, humans of all walks from all kinds of cultures are able to spiritually connect, and have done so as long as humans have existed.


Since you haven't proven any of your blather it is de facto nonsense. Your feeble attempts to distort human history does not equate to evidence of what you are pretending "exists".


> As for "god" mentioned in the OP, that has also been explained to you numerous times. I am using "god" as a metaphoric representation for whatever spiritual force humans are connecting with. I personally believe this is a form of energy that we can't measure with physical science at this time, and probably won't ever be able to. It is a reality outside the material world, that we have the ability to connect to, *while no other living things can. This is why we are special among all living things. This is why our unique attributes are unmatched in nature and evolution can't explain them*. You can call this nonsense or babbling, but even Plato and Aristotle argued there was a spiritual nature.


Once again your appalling ignorance is on display. Animals also display similar trance states to those of humans. Your overweening *ARROGANCE* assumes that this does not exist in the animal kingdom.


> What you believe, is not supported by science or Darwin. I've demonstrated this,* because you can't give me examples of spiritual behavior in any other living thing. *


Read and learn.

Trance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal Hypnosis And Trance | The Emotion Machine

Apparent death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


> The "reasons" you claim spirituality exists, are *not supportable by science, and contradict Darwin*.


Utter nonsense! Of course you* cannot prove and have not proved that ludicrous allegation* because you can't. You just keep on repeating it like a mindless mantra in the vain belief that if you repeat your lies often enough eventually some fool might believe them to be true.


> *You cling to the fact that spiritual nature doesn't provide physical evidence, which is totally illogical. *


More lies from you. You were provided with links in prior posts establishing the physical scientific evidence of the "spiritual" trance state of mind.


> You refuse to accept *spiritual evidence* which is overwhelming, and has been around as long as humans have.


What you are *PRETENDING* is "evidence" doesn't stand up on it's own merits.


> I can't change your mind, I admitted that in the OP, it's not debatable. You have closed your mind and rejected your own spiritual nature, and* you will reject science and everything else, to avoid acknowledging it. *



Please refrain from projecting your own egregious shortcomings onto others.



> We can continue this discussion for another month.. a year... a decade... you are still going to reject spiritual nature, and I get that. It's why I made the point in the OP, first two paragraphs.
> 
> What's interesting, is that *you spend so much time here in this thread*


 Ironic! 





> , hurling one insult after another, ridiculing me, throwing out sarcastic ad homs and denigrations, like you get something out of that... cathartic almost. Is that what this is about to you? A need you have to reinforce your disbeliefs that is so strong, you can't help but continue with this? It's what is seems like to me. If that's the case, I think you need to really ask yourself, are you certain? Or* are you just trying to convince yourself of this*?



Strange you don't ask yourself the same questions. Obviously *YOU* are trying to prove something and making an *EPIC FAILURE* of doing so. If *YOU* were a true "spiritualist" you would be much more open to what is being posted that is critical of your drivel. Instead you are illogical, combative, insulting, rude, belligerent, dishonest, unreasonable and bellicose. Not once have you provided any substantiation for your bizarre claims about both Darwin and scientific evidence to bolster your hyperbolic assertions.  

FYI this is a message board and anyone who joins is free to comment on whatever they deem appropriate. They have quite correctly and accurately exposed your inane babbling  but that is *YOUR* problem, not theirs. 

As for *YOUR* motivation for this thread, that is suspect because of your incessant lying and flipflopping in the face of being presented with hard facts and reputable scientific evidence. Ask any police officer and they will tell you that a positive sign of a liar is someone whose story keeps changing. *Yours* has changed so often that it might even be a record for this forum.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

How about asking why God placed animals geographically close to other animals of similar structure and behavior? One of the early observations that led to the theory of evolution was that species that naturally arose near each other were similar to each other in surprising ways.

Why were nearly ALL early evolutionists Christians if it is antithetical to Christianity?


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh, so "god did it." FAIL. There is nothing more to creationist theory other than "God dun it," so there is nothing to understand. It is a mental atavism.

All early SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION were christians because almost everybody in those earlier european societies were... wait for it... CHRISTIAN. It was punishable by death to be an atheist in most european societies until relatively recently. Btw, Darwin, was likely an atheist.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So, obviously you can't provide a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. That was expected as was your angry, juvenile response. Don't get angry when you're expected to support your claims. If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to have your opinions (and religious convictions), challenged in a public forum, don't post them.

I understand that science was not a subject stressed at your madrassah so Im happy to lend an assist.

In the legitimate science world, scientists publish their work in peer reviewed journals where other scientists have an opportunity to study the data, perform their own tests and compare data to arrive at conclusions.

Thats not the case in the world of creation ministry. Theyre not just biased, theyre biased _in extremis_ and th ir every effort is couched in terms of pressing a religious agenda, just as you do. Its phony, contrived and dishonest. Your heroes at the various Christian creationist ministries dont see it as important whether they present facts or not. If they choose to further opinions and press a religious agenda, thats their choosing. However, dont make the mistake that the opinions of religious fundamentalists are not fostered under the umbrella of a bias and a bigotry firmly in place. The prejudices and preconceptions have earned creation science only ridicule and condemnation from the relevant science community. That is probably the greatest indictment against your creation ministries and the foul odor they has cast upon the science craft.


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." 
- Henry Morris 
_President, Institute for Creation Research_


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



No, it isn't, its only your comprehension of it that makes it so. But that is because yo don't grasp it for what it is, but what you want to think it is so you can rip it up like the typical straw man.



newpolitics said:


> All early evolutionists were christians almost everybody in those early european societies were... wait for it... CHRISTIAN. It was punishable by death to be an atheist in most european societies until relatively recently. Btw, Darwin, was likely an atheist.



We KNOW Darwin was a Christian during his life, but there is no direct evidence of him ever being an atheist.

There is nothing incompatible between Christianity or Creationism as properly understood as a philosophical concept as opposed to evolution as a concept of biology.

The contention is either based on one side not understanding the other side or deliberate misrepresentation and lies.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Again, being an atheist back then was highly controversial, so you shouldn't expect outright admission of atheism, as this was grounds ex-communication and thus, becoming a social outcast, which was too high of a price for most people. However, we have sufficient data to conclude that was at the very least, Darwin was NOT a christian.  

wikipedia:  

"an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

Sounds to me like he was an atheist. Back then, one couldn't admit to being an atheist, so they invented the term "agnostic" to be a softer form of atheism, as a way around receiving the social backlash of calling yourself an atheist, but the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist. He called himself an agnostic, and denies revelation, therefore, was NOT a christian, at the very least. He also said there was no way of determining which religious belief system was true over any other. No christian would say this. 

Anyway, your argument is irrelevant, and constitutes a genetic fallacy. The theological dispositions of those who discovered scientific truths has nothing to do with these things being true. It seems like you just want a point for your "team," while utterly ignoring the demographics of the time. It is again, the arrogance of the christian creationist. 

As for my "misunderstanding" of creationism: you said it yourself. "It is possible that god did it." How is this different than "god dun it?" It isn't. You admitted it yourself. You confirm your own position as being a one-dimensional appeal to the supernatural to handle all theodicies which you can't otherwise explain. This is especially weak apologetics.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

Darwin (wiki):

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. * But I had gradually come, by this time, (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, &c., &c., & from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.*"


Another quote:

"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt&#8211;can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

*I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.*"


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.



So, you know with certainty that one or more gods made trees with rings?

Super!

Which god(s) made the trees with rings and give us the data you used to make that conclusion.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



People left churches to join others or simply refrain from any church activity. If such cause Darwin to pose as a borderline agnostic then he was a coward, and I do not believe that plausible given the criticism he willing accepted when he advanced the theory of evolution.

For some reason it is simply the fad among atheists and other 'victim' groups to go through history and claim some notable person as a member of the victims group. Its almost like feeling normal or something.



newpolitics said:


> However, we have sufficient data to conclude that was at the very least, Darwin was NOT a christian.
> 
> wikipedia:
> 
> "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7]



So you leap from a 'more correct' label of agnostic, to out right atheism? And you  wonder why some here think you are not being objective?



newpolitics said:


> He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]
> 
> Sounds to me like he was an atheist.



Sounds to me like he was a good scientist who had the unfortunate condition of being born Anglican and it being the most vivid representation of Christianity in his life. Hell, I would plausibly have become an agnostic with him in such a communion of snakes and fakes.



newpolitics said:


> Back then, one couldn't admit to being an atheist, so they invented the term "agnostic" to be a softer form of atheism, as a way around receiving the social backlash of calling yourself an atheist, but the two terms are not mutually exclusive.



No, plenty of people back then were openly atheist, so there was no need to pose.



newpolitics said:


> I am an agnostic atheist. He called himself an agnostic, and denies revelation, therefore, was NOT a christian, at the very least.



He denied specific parts of what was generally perceived as revelation similar to Thomas Jefferson. That is not a complete rejection of all revelation.



newpolitics said:


> He also said there was no way of determining which religious belief system was true over any other. No christian would say this.



In regard to origin myths.



newpolitics said:


> Anyway, your argument is irrelevant, and constitutes a genetic fallacy. The theological dispositions of those who discovered scientific truths has nothing to do with these things being true.



It does however have direct relation to my contention that there is no contention between Christianity and evolution if Christians themselves came up with the concept to begin with.



newpolitics said:


> It seems like you just want a point for your "team," while utterly ignoring the demographics of the time. It is again, the arrogance of the christian creationist.



And you demonstrate again your inability to try to grasp the intent and meaning of the person you are responding to. You desperately want to cast science and Christianity as being mutually incompatible, why I don't know. But there is no basis for it among those on both sides who understand the limits and scope of both areas of knowledge.



newpolitics said:


> As for my "misunderstanding" of creationism: you said it yourself. "It is possible that god did it." How is this different than "god dun it?" It isn't.



Lol, one is an assertion, while the other is simply an observation of possible alternatives.

You don't get that because you don't want to get it.



newpolitics said:


> You admitted it yourself. You confirm your own position as being a one-dimensional appeal to the supernatural to handle all theodicies which you can't otherwise explain. This is especially weak apologetics.



And your straw man horde you presented in your response demonstrates my actual contention; that the only people who assert that science and religion are incompatible are either ignorant of some part of one or both, or these people are deliberately dishonest.

You do not understand Creationism. As a person raised in such beliefs and who studied it far more than most when I converted to Catholicism, I assure you that what you think it is has nothing to do with the vast majority of Christians of all denominations on this planet.

So why don't you stop the slander and try to gain a true grasp of what Creationism is according to the actual majority Christians and leave the fundamentalists to speak only for themselves?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.
> ...



Apparently you did not read all of my post.

I was stating the obvious response a fundamentalist Creationist would make as evidence that NP did not grasp the idea of what Creationism is.

Maybe your malady goes deeper than that to actual reading comprehension issues?



Hollie said:


> Which god(s) made the trees with rings and give us the data you used to make that conclusion.



That questions has so many bad assumptions and misguided notions in it that there is simply no way to answer it.

When will you stop beating you wife?

Note, it is sadly all too predictable that though you have made such an ignorant and misguided response, that a couple of your fellows applaud you. It is pathetic that so many people have such insufficient regard for Truth that they would rather thank someone they regard as 'on their side' than to take a moment to actually THINK about what is being said.

It is disgusting, and the epitome of our cultural confusion that is manifest in so many disciplines and fields of knowledge from economics to moral justice to international relations. It will not improve as long as the current idiocratic oligarchy remains.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism.  That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.
> ...



You have never provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your babbling nonsense.



> There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. *However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. *



Spiritualism (like ALL religions) is a response to the fear of death. The fear gene exists in both humans and other mammals. Your "70k years of evidence" are nothing more than an attempt to dispel fear of the unknown.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why does the 'evidence' have to be 'scientific'? (I know the original assertion is that science can prove a theological contention, but I would like to address a wider set of questions.)

Also, do you believe that human memory 'exists'? Does pi exist?

People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The OP made the claim of "using science to prove" so it only reasonable to hold him to his own standard.


> Also, do you believe that human memory 'exists'? Does pi exist?


Interesting questions. If the definition of a memory is the storage of a specific piece of knowledge then we have to distinguish between human knowledge storage and other forms of knowledge storage.  What is printed in a book (clay tablet, cave wall, parchment scroll, magnetic tape, hard drive, solid state memory) remains static until it is altered by something. Human memory is less stable. It has less accurate recall and alters over time. So to answer your first question, yes it does but it is fallible which is probably why we have supplemental means of storing knowledge.

As for pi it is a mathematical constant. Under the current laws of physics as they pertain to the universe we inhabit the laws of mathematics apply across the board. Pi would be true on a planet orbiting Sirius or anywhere else.


> People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.



If you are referring the OP you are probably correct although there does seem to be an agenda behind this thread.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

DT, thank yo for being a reasonable person, at least so far, lol, and giving a fair response. That is ever so more rare these days.



Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yeah, I referenced that in the parenthetical part, but I may have added this after you started your response as I edited it in after rereading my initial post.

I am wanting to consider, however briefly, what are the vectors by which we consider something 'proved' or given more certitude and how are these two types of conclusions different and is one or both illegitimate for whatever reason. 

Most of the data we use to make decisions each day in our daily lives seems to not come from either science or mathematics, but from trusted sources of information. How we each come to trust those sources seems inextricably entwined with what our conclusions on a great many questions are.



Derideo_Te said:


> > Also, do you believe that human memory 'exists'? Does pi exist?
> 
> 
> Interesting questions. If the definition of a memory is the storage of a specific piece of knowledge then we have to distinguish between human knowledge storage and other forms of knowledge storage.  What is printed in a book (clay tablet, cave wall, parchment scroll, magnetic tape, hard drive, solid state memory) remains static until it is altered by something. Human memory is less stable. It has less accurate recall and alters over time. So to answer your first question, yes it does but it is fallible which is probably why we have supplemental means of storing knowledge.
> ...



So we seem to agree that something can exist without being material, and existence seems in part tied to the idea of stability and universality?



Derideo_Te said:


> > People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are referring the OP you are probably correct although there does seem to be an agenda behind this thread.



I think the OP to some degree is using terms that have a different meaning to many who are responding and he sometimes seems to not be cognizant of this when he responds.

But this is also true of almost all of those who respond critically also.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> DT, thank yo for being a reasonable person, at least so far, lol, and giving a fair response. That is ever so more rare these days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wikipedia is derided by many and yet it requires citations and references and is constantly peer reviewed. Given that sources like encyclopedias have always been subject to that scrutiny it seems as good as any to trust as a reputable source of information. Any source that is open to correction and willing to acknowledge mistakes does have credibility. Applying that same criteria to news sources provides a means to determine how much is hype versus factual. To be fair news is notorious for inaccuracy (by it's very nature) and requires independent verification. The more credible news outlets know this and strive for accuracy and will publish retractions when appropriate.

Yes, we do have personal biases because having our own opinions shared and reinforced is comforting in reassuring ourselves that we are "right". However an open mind reads from a broad spectrum of sources rather than just a few.


> So we seem to agree that something can exist without being material, and existence seems in part tied to the idea of stability and universality?


Yes.


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > > People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.
> ...



That terms have more than one meaning is generally known although not apparent to all. If the OP is trying to make a point then using the appropriate context for the term would be useful. Instead what is apparent is a "fast and loose" approach so as not to be "pinned down" to specifics. Conflating religion and science is a bad idea and all attempts to use science to "prove" religion have been dismal failures. This thread is a case in point.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That was an entirely unnecessary and pointless excuse for defending the claim that tree rings have been "designed" by the gods.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Lol, I am NOT defending it, dude. I don't believe that God made everything in a mature state but used an evolutionary process.

You just cant get it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Also it means nothing to anyone who subscribes to Old Earth Creationism anyway, so it begs the question, unless someone here is defending Young Earth Creationism.

Youwerecreated, do you believe our Earth was created from absolutely nothing less than 100k years ago?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Cognitive dissonance on display.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



You are assuming anxiety on YWC's part, which is a necessary component to cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Anxiety is not a requirement for CD. This is merely conflict between his set of beliefs and the existing evidence causing him to claim that it is "unimportant" which is belied by his posting on the topic.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DT, thank yo for being a reasonable person, at least so far, lol, and giving a fair response. That is ever so more rare these days.
> ...



'Peer reviewed' is a loaded phrase. LENR researchers claim that their papers have been peer reviewed, and yet most scientists dismiss that claim, asserting that the peers were not objective or reputable, the proof of which is that they were willing to peer review a paper on LENR! lol  I  have read that other disruptive technologies have faced the same presumptive dismissal by the scientific establishments of their time. The peer review process is only as good as the people involved in it, and all of them )us) have biases that can get in the way of proper peer review, especially if a cientific community suffers Lysenkoism to any significant degree.

Wikipedia's editors are all thoroughly politically correct and they have volunteer editors monitoring designated subjects 24/7 to prevent dissenting views from remaining on their site, no matter how thoroughly debunked the PC assertion may be.

Wikipedia is good for reference to facts that are not controversial and of the public domain, not much more, IMO.



Derideo_Te said:


> Applying that same criteria to news sources provides a means to determine how much is hype versus factual. To be fair news is notorious for inaccuracy (by it's very nature) and requires independent verification. The more credible news outlets know this and strive for accuracy and will publish retractions when appropriate.



News sources are the same song second verse.



Derideo_Te said:


> Yes, we do have personal biases because having our own opinions shared and reinforced is comforting in reassuring ourselves that we are "right". However an open mind reads from a broad spectrum of sources rather than just a few.
> 
> Yes.



Agreed, and such broad readings of contentious 'facts' or dissenting opinion of various sorts is openly attacked and ridiculed by fanatics of all stripes today.

Those who make  a commitment to rational discussion I think should shun radicalism of all variations and look for rational discourse, and denounce those who make ad hominem attacks to bully opponents into silence.

I have no patience any more for proven liars, bullies and trolls. Maybe its because I feel like I don't have enough years left to waste time even reading such bilge, I don't know.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



From your 'reliable' Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In modern psychology,* cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced *when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse.[2][3] Festinger subsequently (1957) published a book called A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in which he outlines the theory. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
> 
> The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]
> 
> Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior



I am referring to anxiety in a common sense to mean discomfort of a mental sort.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Yes, I find it Hard to believe the Big Bang created all we see on this planet and in the universe.

I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the bible say's God created the heavens and the earth.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Thank you for the clarification. The poster concerned is definitely "lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors" in this instance.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No one can accurately say how old the universe and earth is so I do not place importance on the issue.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So unless they can it pin it down to exactly 3:17 pm on 11/23/13769850238 BC it doesn't count for you?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



True, but unless God is playing a huge and cruel trick on mankind by leaving misleading evidence in His creation that suggests it is extremely old, we can be sure that the Earth and the Universe are extremely old; billions of years old, though no specific number can be 100% certain.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It won't matter concerning my beliefs. Almost can be way off the mark.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Some things are not always the way they seem. Why would God have to be playing a cruel trick on mankind ? it is mans opinions on some issues having us believing as many do.

Entropy can that not give the appearance of age ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



While you have every right to your beliefs they cannot stop the march of progress and knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Never said they should.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> *LOL... where did I call you a name, Dorito? *
> You just did it again. You have called me a liar (when you are the one doing all of the lying) and you have used other foul names that no genuine "spiritualist" would ever use.



I called you a liar because you continue to claim I am speaking of a "deity" when I never have. Whenever someone repeatedly claims something that isn't true, that person is defined as a liar. If you don't like being called a liar, stop telling lies. Ooo... "foul names" ....shame on me! Maybe I am going to "burn in hell" for calling you "Dorito?"  What the heck gives you the authority to determine what spiritually connected people would or wouldn't do?  Did they send you a funny looking hat and summon you to The Vatican? Save your guilt trips, they don't work on me. 



> *There is nothing I have said that is "blathering nonsense" at all.*
> Since you haven't proven any of your blather it is de facto nonsense. Your feeble attempts to distort human history does not equate to evidence of what you are pretending "exists".



There is nothing "feeble" about the history of human spirituality. It has existed as long as there has been human civilization. Your attempts to refute that, are indeed "feeble." 



> *It is a reality outside the material world, that we have the ability to connect to, while no other living things can. This is why we are special among all living things. This is why our unique attributes are unmatched in nature and evolution can't explain them.*
> Once again your appalling ignorance is on display. Animals also display similar trance states to those of humans. Your overweening ARROGANCE assumes that this does not exist in the animal kingdom.



I've not mentioned anything about a "trance state" or whether other animals have them. When I see monkeys going off to church and carrying bibles around, I will accept that other animals are spiritually connected. As it stands, there is no evidence that other animals are spiritually connected. There is nothing "arrogant" about making that point. There IS something "arrogant" about insisting human spirituality is nothing more than a meditative trance. 

According to you in this post, I am a blathering feeble liar who is arrogantly displaying ignorance...but you claim it is ME who is calling you names? That's funny... sad and pathetic, but still... very funny! Enjoy your funny hat, Pope Dorito!


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

> While you have every right to your beliefs they cannot stop the march of progress and knowledge.



And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.


----------



## numan (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.


If Spiritual Existence is not part of the physical realm, by what possible procedure could you assess the figure for such a probability?

· · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > *"spiritual energy which I (Boss) refer to as "god" ...*
> ...







> > OP: Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.
> >
> > So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!
> 
> ...




*So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!*



> Life is created by spiritual energy ....
> 
> Like I said, there is positive and negative spiritual energy  -  No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason  -  The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you.




there is something a little confusing to your: "Definitive proof that God exists!"

you have stated there exists both Positive and Negative spiritual energy - and that "Life is created by spiritual energy" as agreed - but also there exists a certainty that all living matter at its inception be Pure as the defining ingredient for it to exist ... so where in your "Definitive" proof by your definition of "God" is the purity between Positive and Negative Spirituality resolved ?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The Big Bang was simply an event. It did not choose to create anything.

The Big Bang is what happened when God decided to create the universe.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> All one has to do is look at the creationists thread and see how disengenuous of the sciences you two are.
> 
> They won't have to look far at that nonsense Daws was posting  the last couple of days lol. They can even see it here.


how is that possible creationism is not science.
what nonsense have I posted ? the answer is none.
the more you claim it's nonsense the more factual it is.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > *LOL... where did I call you a name, Dorito? *
> ...



Yet another insipid response from you that is rife with distortions and canards. Obviously it is a waste of time calling you on them since you infest a pool of denial. 

Instead let's move on to your redefining the religion of Spiritualism to suit yourself. Why don't you enlighten everyone as to what *YOU* believe it means and where your "definitive proof" of *YOUR* God "exists" in it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
> ...



OK, how about 84%?
'No Religion' Is World's Third-Largest Religious Group After Christians, Muslims According To Pew Study


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > All one has to do is look at the creationists thread and see how disengenuous of the sciences you two are.
> ...



Or maybe it makes sense to you and due to poor communication it makes NO sense to him?

I have yet to meet a single evangelical with a college degree who cannot admit the possibility of evolution and the Big Bang being true after just 15 minutes of discussing and listening to a person who wasn't trying to beat them over the head with what they regard as questionable science.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Now this is the level of ignorance I am speaking of.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html
> 
> Now all you have to is go back from there and watch daws dance.


 wow! talk about A COMPLETE DISCONNECT from reality...
only you would say this statement of fact:" and as always you be wrong...
genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a sub discipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit."- me    IS IGNORANCE .


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


bump!
if you want to call  325 years after the fact "peer reviewed" !


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another classic argument from a false premise!
there is no evidence god did anything... therefore anything taken from that false premise is by definition false.
2"Why were nearly ALL early evolutionists Christians if it is antithetical to Christianity?"- JB
ANSWER: Because most everybody was.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The use of profanity demonstrates an intellectual shortcoming in not being able to express yourself cogently and coherently. 


> Remember, *I don't believe in god of religion, I believe in god of nature. My god *doesn't frown upon use of profanities.


You deny having a God and then you claim to have one. Obviously you are conflicted in your own beliefs. This probably explains your intense levels of frustration and confusion.


> So sorry that *your self-righteous piety *doesn't work on me.. go attack a Christian with it.



*YOU* are the one claiming to be "spiritual" and yet nothing in your posts shows any indication of "spirituality". Instead you come across as a bombastic arrogant blowhard. You really need to work on your marketing skills if you expect anyone to buy into your snake oil brand of "spirituality" that you are trying to sell in this thread.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


lair liar pants on fire !
you've spent god knows (pun intended)how many pages on the creationist thread attempting to prove a young earth.
now you say it's not that important.. who's ass are you trying to kiss now?
if it isn't obvious to other posters by now ywc will latch on to any mention of god or Christianity that he imagines will bolster his bullshit.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
> ...



Well.... Whenever we do these things called "surveys" where we ask people for their opinions and stuff, the statistics consistently show that 5% claim to have no spiritual beliefs whatsoever, which is defined as "Nihilistic." When we subtract the 5% Nihilists from 100% of all humans, we come up with 95% who are not Nihilistic. Now these 95% vary in the degree at which they acknowledge spirituality, but they weren't inclined to identify as Nihilists. The curious thing is, this statistic is largely unchanged throughout human history....even as Science has grown in popularity and enlightened us on so many aspects of the physical universe. 

Glad to have cleared that up for you!


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Well, I never stated that all living matter must be "pure" and I am not sure what parameters are being set here, with the use of this particular word. There does seem to be a fairly common understanding among us, of what is "good" and what is "evil," even if the lines are sometimes blurred.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

> *However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence.
> *
> Spiritualism (like ALL religions) is a response to the fear of death. The fear gene exists in both humans and other mammals. Your "70k years of evidence" are nothing more than an attempt to dispel fear of the unknown.



As I have demonstrated, spirituality did not follow fear of death. If that were the case, other animals would have this same insatiable fear of death which required inventions of the mind to cope with, and we see no such evidence in all of nature. It also doesn't follow fear of the unknown, or we would see precipitous decline in spirituality as the unknowns have been answered, and we don't. The fear of death and the unknown, stem FROM our spiritual connection, not the other way around. If not, you could prove otherwise.


----------



## numan (Jun 9, 2013)

'
Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!

You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure  is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.

Glad to have cleared that up for you!
.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!
> 
> You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure  is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.
> ...



So there is no evidence of spirituality because they always just lie anyway?

huh?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Derideo_Te said:
> >
> >
> > > The use of profanity demonstrates an intellectual shortcoming in not being able to express yourself cogently and coherently.
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, people say all sorts of things on surveys that are not true -- you can't depend on them!!
> 
> You will need some other procedure to check the accuracy of people's descriptions of their inner states -- but any such procedure  is part of the physical realm, and you have stated that spiritual things are part of the physical realm -- so it's hard to imagine how you could fix accurate -- or even approximate -- figures about people's spirituality.
> ...



This is true, and I have often suspected that many of the 5% who claim to be Nihilists are not really as disbelieving as they claim. Still, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since we really don't have a way to confirm actual spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Derideo_Te said:
> >
> >
> > > The use of profanity demonstrates an intellectual shortcoming in not being able to express yourself cogently and coherently.
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



A whole bunch of people are categorized as agnostics when all that is truthfully said about them is that they do not belong to a religious group. Then some atheist militante will claim the agnostic as an atheist but too afraid to admit it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



We do not reject micro-adaptations or micro-evolution whichever term you prefer,we do however reject humans being relatives to other primates other than homo sapiens.

Big Bang possible I have not seen anything to convince me of the theory. There are evidences that suggest it never happened.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



God made man from the dust of the ground and then God gave us like Him, which I have long understood to be when humanity was ensouled and made capable of reflective, cognitive thought.

And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?

Why do you feel it is legit to interpret a non-scientific literary form written by pastoral society scribes long long time ago as though Genesis were a modern scientific text?




Youwerecreated said:


> Big Bang possible I have not seen anything to convince me of the theory. There are evidences that suggest it never happened.



Background cosmic radiation has features that are best/most easily explained by the Big Bang theory, at least for now.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


depends on what lie they're telling .
if you assume that other life forms cannot lie ,then the ability to lie is part of spirituality


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Even more telling is how utterly offended they become with the label "nihilist." It seems they would proudly embrace the descriptor, but they almost always balk. I have often said, many Atheists are bigger believers in god than some Christians. They certainly believe in god, and their whole atheist shtick is about denouncing the god they definitely believe in. This is what prompts a 2.300+ post thread such as this, where the so-called "atheists" spend untold hours debating something they claim not to believe in.

Now, I think what is happening here, is religions have a rigorous standard of adherence to dogma, and these people are too spiritually weak to conform, so they attack these beliefs and institutions instead. It's like the high school dropout who throws bricks through the windows of the school in rebellion. 

However, we can examine the question of spiritual nature and existence, without the distraction of religion or theological dogma. Human spirituality supersedes religions, and doesn't rely on any particular religious dogma. It is an attribute which has been present in our species as long as we've existed. Indeed, our most defining and unique attribute, which distinguishes us from all other living things.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > It's profane to say I am "making feeble attempts" and "espousing nonsense" when that is clearly not the case. It is profane to continue insinuating I have spoken of "deities" when that is not the case. It is also clear that you are unable to express your viewpoint coherently and cogently, so you may be onto something!
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

> And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?



It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now this is the level of ignorance I am speaking of.
> ...



No what we were discussing was what Molecule were the earliest organisms constructed from. Then you claimed you learned this in High school in genetics and I am saying you're ignorant of the facts. The question I asked you was life from Biochemistry at the Molecular level.

So yes you're ignorant of the facts.

THE molecules of Rna and Dna are best learned in molecular biology.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Who is lying ? have I not stated no one knows how old the earth is ? yes. Have I said I don't believe the earth is as old as has been claimed by evolutionists ? yes Is there evidence supporting my view ? yes.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> > And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?



No, it doesn't. 

You've invented your own terms for religious belief you call "spiritual nature" so why not invent your own creation story?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



Similarly, we have no way to confirm this spiritual nature canard you toss about. And lets be honest, as much as you have tried to hide your religious fundamentalism behind slogans and canards, you're really just a mere, pedestrian hater. 

It seems that spouting platitudes, regurgitating cliches, and condemning other people who dont share your religious beliefs is a simple matter for the religiously self-righteousness.

Whats interesting in your categorization of the heathen infidel revolves around the one constant that has driven religious belief: fear of the unknown and the second place finisher that drives faith: rewards in an afterlife. Those were, and are, the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority. My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that _is_ a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.

Overwhelmingly, people have simply inherited their religions  and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them. Honestly, how many theists do you know who could even assess the problem of Pascal's Wager, let alone have even heard of it?


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?
> ...



I haven't "invented" anything. Spiritual nature is what humans have always spiritually connected to, and you've not disproven it's existence. I've repeatedly asked you to present some evidence, make a case, show us some science... and all you continue to do, is spew the same "because I say so" arguments. 

You have invented your own order of disbelief.... there is no clear physical evidence to support a spiritual nature, therefore, it doesn't exist. We can't presently verify or confirm spiritual nature with physical science, therefore, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Your mind remains firmly closed to any possibility, completely defying the scientific method, which never ever draws such conclusions. Your explanations and reasonings defy science and what we do know about animal behavior. You've literally adopted this disbelief as your "spiritual religion," and you are determined to take the closed-minded viewpoint to your grave.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit !
we'll do this one more time.
the above is a refuting of your obsession with your own education about every 100 pages in the creationist thread you bring it up ,almost always when you're getting your ass handed to you.
it was in response to one of "those" post where I said  I'd  been taught a larger volume and verity of science the you had.    
as always your hubris read it misshapen head.
that's when you decided to  test me with molecule question. the rest is you being pissed off at the fact you'd failed find fault with my answer.
this is your second attempt to rewrite the facts.
I can only conclude it's because you're wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The scriptures say it a little differently. The big bang and other theories  can't coexist. with the bible They are in contrast of each other. The big bang is a theory that the bible contradicts as well as the theory of evolution.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


now you're attempting to bullshit your way out of it..
well you're not.
you suck at semantics!
btw there is no evidence supporting your view


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Look so there is no confusion I believe the earth is closer to 6,000 years old then 4 billion is that to hard for you to comprehend ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



As usual, you sprout your "spiritual nature" canard with never any attempt to offer support for your invention. 

Your mind remains fixed on sprouting canards and slogans. It's the closed-minded approach of religious fundamentalists. Absent any ability to support their arguments with facts and documentation, they're left to insist that while their slogans represent fact, their facts cannot be demonstrated unless one has a prior belief in the metaphysical / supernatural world resulting from their canards and slogans.

Religious fundamentalists are such a hoot.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


still attempting to evade ..


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Other than it's foolish... well, yes.

Do you also think the earth is flat? How about a geocentric model?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yes you made that claim and I tested you with a question and I knew you got your answer from a google then made the claim you learned it in high school then went on to say you took a genetics class in high school and compared it to micro biology not understanding what those fields taught. I pointed it out to you the question I asked can best be answered through molecular biology which is a fact.

You really can't be this stupid can you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Show me where I stated the earth and universe are 6,000 years old.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> > While you have every right to your beliefs they cannot stop the march of progress and knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.



Its not understanding, as this presupposes a spiritual realm exists. It is merely a belief. People also believe in Bigfoot. So what. Again, belief does not demonstrate truth. This entire thread is refuted by this fact alone.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Similarly, we have no way to confirm this spiritual nature canard you toss about. And lets be honest, as much as you have tried to hide your religious fundamentalism behind slogans and canards, you're really just a mere, pedestrian hater.



Oh, but people who accept spiritual nature can certainly confirm it exists, we have billions and billions of examples over many centuries. We can't confirm it physically exists, because it doesn't physically exist. You have trouble comprehending spiritual existence, since you reject spiritual nature. The term doesn't make sense to you, because "existence" can only be physical in your mind, it is closed to any other possibility. 

I've repeatedly addressed your charges that I am a "religious fundamentalist" and you just keep right on accusing me of this. It's because the ONLY legitimate arguments you can create, center around disbelief in religious dogma, something we both, ironically, share in common. As I have pointed out, IF I AM a religious fundie, I have inadvertently condemned myself to eternal damnation by rejecting my beliefs... why would I do such a thing, just to trick you? Again, you seem to have run slap into the wall of logic. 



> It seems that spouting platitudes, regurgitating cliches, and condemning other people who dont share your religious beliefs is a simple matter for the religiously self-righteousness.



I've repeatedly expressed NO religious belief. I have not condemned you for not believing as I do, in fact, I pointed this out in the first two paragraphs of the OP, and have reiterated it throughout the thread. You don't believe or accept spiritual evidence, and I fully understand you don't. It's not "condemnation" for me to point this fact out, and you have confirmed that I am correct. 

You continue to dishonestly portray me as a religious zealot who is attempting to force my dogma on you against your will, because you want desperately for this to be a religious debate. This is because you are angry at religion and religious people, and your prejudice and bigotry prevents you from being the least bit objective on this topic. 



> Whats interesting in your categorization of the heathen infidel revolves around the one constant that has driven religious belief: fear of the unknown and the second place finisher that drives faith: rewards in an afterlife. Those were, and are, the promise of religion in the first place!



But I have not categorized you as an infidel or heathen, nor have I presented ANY kind of "religious" argument. Again, you wish to make this the case when it clearly isn't, because you need for this to be a theological debate about religion... that's the only field of play you are confident in doing battle on, and I continue to reject your attempts to take the topic there. Regardless, you've apparently decided that you can just keep repeating this lie until it becomes true, but this isn't Democrat politics, and you're not MSNBC. 



> And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority. My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that _is_ a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.



Again, I will ask you... have you always been a Nihilist, or did you come to this realization later in life? The "unmovable truth" is that humans have always had the ability to spiritually connect to something greater than self. 



> Overwhelmingly, people have simply inherited their religions  and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them. Honestly, how many theists do you know who could even assess the problem of Pascal's Wager, let alone have even heard of it?



This is not a theological argument. I have made this abundantly clear. I have also explained why it's important for you to make this into a religious debate. Now, Hollie, I have wasted enough time on you, if you can't be honest here and stop accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist, trying to turn the argument into a theological debate, or claim that spirituality is equivalent to religion, we really have nothing else to discuss. You've decided to demagogue and filibuster, with no intention of being the least bit honest or objective in discussing the topic rationally.  I'm done playing your game.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Here's an interesting thought experiment. Substitute "_The Easter Bunny"_ for your slogans including "spiritual nature" in your post above. Interestingly, the validity of your comments are Identical


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > While you have every right to your beliefs they cannot stop the march of progress and knowledge.
> ...



As I pointed out in the OP, "proof" is subjective, it relies on our perception of what is and isn't "evidence" of something. I have asked you to explain the phenomenon of human spirituality, and every explanation you have offered, defies science, defies Darwin, and defies logic. 

You can rationally claim that Bigfoot is the product of human imaginations run wild, and since there have never been any bones found or physical evidence to support Bigfoot, we can reasonably assume you are probably correct. But if 95% of humans throughout human existence, had consistently reported some encounter with Bigfoot, and this belief in Bigfoot had been the most defining attribute in humans, we wouldn't be able to simply dismiss that as imagination.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Illogical... no one has ever claimed a spiritual connection to the Easter Bunny.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Evidence is not subjective, by definition. Here again, you are simply making unwarranted proclamations and inventing your own definitions to prove your point. This is again, intellectual dishonesty on a fundamental level.  There are differing kinds of evidence, each with differing standards: anecdotal, empirical, historical... Spiritual evidence falls into the category of anecdotal evidence, which is the least trusted form of evidence, and the least acceptable in a court room as evidence. In court cases, eye-witness testimony is used to corroborate empirical evidence, but alone, is not considered sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty. The same reason courts disallow eye-witness testimony to count as evidence, is the same reason human belief is not evidence. We are not reliable indicators of what is real or what reality is about. This is why the scientific method is so important, and has been successful at getting out of the way of our built-in cognitive bias, which is a topic you have completely failed to address. I have refuted every one of your  points in the OP, at length. However, you simply ignore me, and continue on believing what you want. This isn't a debate. This is a monologue that you keep on repeating. You aren't interacting with anyone here. 

I have, at this point, pegged you as a young earth christian fundamentalist creationist. There is none more irrational than this ilk of believers.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Completely logical. The Easter Bunny is as real and extant as your Invention of "spiritual nature".


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Lol. Oh yes we would. If 95% of humans throughout history had reported belief in Bigfoot, and there was no evidence anywhere, ever, humanity would have proven itself to be utterly delusional.  It is no different with god, and humanity is no less delusional for believing in god or the spiritual, the difference is that the spiritual is unfalsifiable. This is the only reason you are getting away with this thread. Yet, by virtue of the fact that the spiritual is unfalsifiable, also means that it is unprovable, taking away any chance your OP title has of getting of the ground, and I distinguish your OP title from you OP itself, since your OP demonstrates nothing.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sure we could.  5% of the time, 95% of people will all report something that is subjective as being objective.

By definition, scientific Proof isn't subjective.

And, the 95% of people that report having a se se of spirituality don't also say that it is an objective sense.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I never once contended that science and religion are incompatible. How Ironic that you talk of straw-men. I do, however, contend that young-earth fundamentalism and science are irreconcilable, however, I never mentioned that in this thread, so you would have had no way of knowing this. Interesting to note that, the foremost christian apologists such as William Lane Craig, considers young earth creationism to be an embarrassment to the faith.   

Who was openly atheistic back then? Are you denying that people had to hide it? And, who the hell are you to judge someone from a different time for their fear social backlash? This akin to judging a jew for not coming out as a jew during the holocaust. It is infinitely arrogant. In many judeo-christian societies until recently, being an atheist was punishable by death. By the way, according to Boss's errant logic, this would confirm atheism is "true" since people were willing to hold a belief and risk death to do so.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



As far as you know, which I doubt is very far.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong I stated a fact...I never compared it to microbiology.....      you did.
as always you made a false assumption "you got it from Google" ..
so again you're attempting to misrepresent the facts.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You would do well to stay quiet while you read and learn.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> I never once contended that science and religion are incompatible. How Ironic that you talk of straw-men. I do, however, contend that young-earth fundamentalism and science are irreconcilable, however, I never mentioned that in this thread, so you would have had no way of knowing this.



Your responses indicate you think the Creationist are incompatible with science, though this narrowing to YE fundamentalists is new.



newpolitics said:


> Interesting to note that, the foremost christian apologists such as William Lane Craig, considers young earth creationism to be an embarrassment to the faith.   Given such a fundamental misunderstanding of my position, I am not going to respond to the rest of your fallacy-laiden response, obviously built on a straw-man of my position.



I wouldn't say that YEC is an embarrassment, but that it is askew with a correct prioritization of Biblical text as interpreted and what kind of literary form they take.

And my 'fallacy laiden response' is nothing more than mockery, pishaw.



newpolitics said:


> Who was openly atheistic back then? Are you denying that people had to hide it? And, who the hell are you to judge someone from a different time for their fear social backlash?



Lol, what is the point of having a word like 'coward' if it doesn't apply to someone to afraid to either openly state his beliefs or migrate to where he could? Your view of Darwin is that he is a coward, though you retreat from just coming out and saying it plainly.



newpolitics said:


> This akin to judging a jew for not coming out as a jew during the holocaust.



Bullshit. NO one was going to throw Darwin in a death camp. Your hyperbole is ridiculous and contemptuous.



newpolitics said:


> It is infinitely arrogant.



So now it seems you don't grasp infinity either.



newpolitics said:


> In many judeo-christian societies until recently, being an atheist was punishable by death.



Not in England during the late 1800s, bubba.



newpolitics said:


> By the way, according to Boss's errant logic, this would confirm atheism is "true" since people were willing to hold a belief and risk death to do so.



No, but it would prove sincerity, another notion I suspect you have problems with.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well since you seem to think that one is held as seriously and with as much devotion as the other, I think I have read enough to see your discombobulation here.

The typical atheist today cannot distinguish between the Abrahamic concept of a Creator and the polytheistic notion of a 'god'. That speaks of ignorance and contempt bordering on foolishness.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Have you decided if you think human memory exists yet? Or are you still working on that?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


that's because it's a distinction without a difference..
and a case of moving the goal posts..
but the score remains lions 10 Christians 0....


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


asked and answered. better watch it you're beginning to sound like YWC...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The question wasn't directed at you. Did ifitsme answer? if so, got a link?

And who the hell is YWC?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Bullshit, there is incredible difference. Your ignorance of what those differences are shows you to be the pretentious posteur I suspected you are, another village atheist that cant think through a wet paper sack.



daws101 said:


> and a case of moving the goal posts..
> but the score remains lions 10 Christians 0....



No ones moving any goalposts and I don't give a fuck what you think the score is. 

The proof is plain; you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


thanks for proving my point for me!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh, and thank YOU for proving MY point for me!

roflmao. you really are a stupid ****.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


One being held as seriously as another when both are appeals to ignorance and superstition is hardly an endorsement for one or the other, particularly your gawds. 

Whoops, here's where your short bus departs. All beliefs are _not_ equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by one of a select few exonerations of "Well, you can't prove it ain't, or equally nonsensical there are no physical attributes or methods to test for its existence. 

We are forced to adhere to some _standard_ of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual (in your case, a religious fundamentalist), can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and show _cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, vacuous claims. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.





> The typical atheist today cannot distinguish between the Abrahamic concept of a Creator and the polytheistic notion of a 'god'. That speaks of ignorance and contempt bordering on foolishness.


The typical atheist? You should spend some time to understand what youre writing before assigning the title pompous fool to your name. On the contrary, it is you religious folks who should spend some time trying to understand your holy texts. Its actually laughable that you lovely religious types have spent thousands of years splintering into various sects and subdivisions of religions, each utterly hostile and in conflict with the other. 

You might be surprised to learn that the Abrahamic religion you practice (for no other reason than one of convenience), is but one of many religions, all of which suffer from the same inherent flaw: theres nothing to support the belief except belief. 

At least to me, that puts you squarely on the pinnacle of ignorance and (self) contempt. You should seek help for that ailment.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And who says that fundie zealots don't represent the stereotypical angry, self-hating personality disorder.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Who the fuck is appealing to ignorance? Have you axed me what my evidence is? No, so dont give me this appeal to ignorance shit.



Hollie said:


> Whoops, here's where your short bus departs.



Fuck you.



Hollie said:


> All beliefs are _not_ equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.



Beliefs dont have to 'over' other beliefs to be true. Some Truths are exactly subjective.



Hollie said:


> There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.)



I walked down to the lake and the water was 60 degrees Farenheit. Is that repeatable? Of course not, as any other measurement would be a different measurement at another time and place.

I was at the store when it got robbed. I saw that one of the robbers was a guy I knew from my Spanish class. Doesnt fit into any of your overly narrow and dogmatic categories of what is knowlege.

I love my wife. Prove that. Prove that it is not true either, I dont care. Most truths we live by day to day have absolutely zip, nada, nothing whatsoever to do with science or math.



Hollie said:


> Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by one of a select few exonerations of "Well, you can't prove it ain't, or equally nonsensical &#8220;there are no physical attributes or methods to test for its existence&#8221;.



Bullshit. Why would anyone assert such when any evidence of the existance of God is immediately capable of being redefined as not God, much as the Big Bang has now become a secularized concept of NOT being God's act of creation to you blinded fools, but because science has learned the Truth that the whole fucking universe came into existence in a split second and now that science can measure some evidence of the event, well, now it has nothing to do with God at all! lol

You live in the midst of a ecreated by God, immersed in God Himself as He transcends His Creation, and you cant see Him becasue you wont open up your fucking eyes. Everything you touch, hear, see and smell or taste is a partial manifestation of God's Will, His Imagination.

But you cant see that because you dont want to see it. lol



Hollie said:


> We are forced to adhere to some _standard_ of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual (in your case, a religious fundamentalist), can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and show _cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, vacuous claims. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.



I am not going to defend what amounts to one tenth or less of the Christian world. Let the fundamentalists and other YEC defend themselves, if you want that.



Hollie said:


> > The typical atheist today cannot distinguish between the Abrahamic concept of a Creator and the polytheistic notion of a 'god'. That speaks of ignorance and contempt bordering on foolishness.
> 
> 
> The &#8220;typical atheist&#8221;? You should spend some time to understand what you&#8217;re writing before assigning the title &#8220;pompous fool&#8221; to your name.



Oh nose! I twemnble in my bootsies! lol

The dimsissal of fools is to the credit of the wise. When dumbasses cant grasp a simple distinction as the difference between a Creator that created space and time as opposed to some 'god' who is the creature of space and time, then that person is a dumbass.



Hollie said:


> On the contrary, it is you religious folks who should spend some time trying to understand your &#8220;holy texts&#8221;. It&#8217;s actually laughable that you lovely religious types have spent thousands of years splintering into various sects and subdivisions of religions, each utterly hostile and in conflict with the other.



Yeah because Marxists have never done that, or hunted each other down and murdered them or slaughtering hundreds of millions of people for not agreeing with them...oops, wait, the Stalinst atheists, Maoist atheists... ah nm. lololol



Hollie said:


> You might be surprised to learn that the Abrahamic religion you practice (for no other reason than one of convenience), is but one of many religions, all of which suffer from the same inherent flaw: there&#8217;s nothing to support the belief except &#8220;belief&#8221;.



What, there are other religions?  Well whod a thunk dat?

lol, you embicile. thanks for the chuckle.

Yes, there is a huge difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the nonAbrahamic faiths. One of which is that the Abrahamic faiths cover the globe, have millions of adherents in every country, out number other types of religions in almost all countries, and all claim to have valid evidence based on historical facts and reason and all came from the relationship one man had with God a long time ago. There is no other religion like it at all in that respect.

That you dont bother to even try to learn any of this and you suppose that I am as ignorant as you are is simply insane.

You are a demonstrable ignoramus and anti-Christian bigot.



Hollie said:


> At least to me, that puts you squarely on the pinnacle of ignorance and (self) contempt. You should seek help for that ailment.



And you should pull your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Anybody that knows a damned thing on the subject, which leaves you out, ass hat.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Bullshit. Why would anyone assert such when any existance of God is immediately capable of being redefined as not God, much as the Big Bang has now become a secularized concept of not God's act of creation to youo blinded fools, but because science has learned its Truth and can measure some of it, well, now it has nothing to do with God at all! lol



> You live in the midst of a univers created by God, immersed in God Himself, and you cant see Him becasue you wont open up your fucking eyes. Everything you touch, hear, see and smell or taste is a partial manifestation of God's Will, His Imagination.
> 
> But you cant see that because you dont want to see it. lol



Gee whiz. For a moment there I thought he might _do an islam_ and detonate his explosive vest to "take one for the cause".

They're so cute when they're thumping their bibles.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



There is a reason for the term "fundie stereotype".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Gee whiz. For a moment there I thought he might _do an islam_ and detonate his explosive vest to "take one for the cause".
> 
> They're so cute when they're thumping their bibles.



oh no! I am a Christian Talibanazi!?!

Man, better go call HMS, dumb fuck.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And there is a reason that you are an ignoramus; you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gee whiz. For a moment there I thought he might _do an islam_ and detonate his explosive vest to "take one for the cause".
> ...



Here's where we are: 

8.5 for rampant use of Cliches&#8217;
6.3 for promoting religiously inspired hatreds
8.9 for ensuring at least 6 grammatical/spelling errors in each post
7.8 for empty rhetoric

You're almost there, just a little more religious zeal and you'll be the best damned hater you can be! 

Here, have a cookie.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Piss off, bitch.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I'm really impressed with the internet tough guy persona. 

Really, I am.

It's quite a Crusade you're on - waving your aluminum foil sabre.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



roflmao

I am not being a 'tough guy' just because the act of defying your bullshit makes your panties all go into a bunch and wet your pants.

It is truly amazing to me that you and other atheistic ignoramuses claim to know so much about theism and show the most abysmal ignorance on the whole subject. One would think you would be aware enough of your ignorance to not show it off so much, yo uknow, better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt kind of thing. But on the contrary, you fools just cant shut up! lolol

Hubris is a word that is insufficient for this; it is simply maliscious lying, really. You know you are full of shit but you just cant starting shit with people who make the mistake of taking you seriously.

Though I disagree with atheists, obviously, I have had and still have some friends that are atheists and most of them either readily admit that they really don't care about the idea or veracity of God. The rest will discuss it in a more Bertrand Russel kind of way and talk about formal logic and how there is a lack of evidence that suggests nonexistence, and they can discuss the arguments for and against shooting holes equal in each sides claims, etc.

But you bullshit artists are really a league to yourselves. You think just because you spout some bullshit you heard from your friends or some trusted source it MUST be true.

lol, Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. You kind of demonstrate the point.


----------



## numan (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Yes, there is a huge difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the nonAbrahamic faiths. One of which is that the Abrahamic faiths cover the globe, have millions of adherents in every country, out number other types of religions in almost all countries....


Even if that were true, it would simply be an example of Gresham's Law :

"Bad money drives out good money."

Bad religion drives out good religion.
.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Oh my. You're angry. I understand that. So many really angry fundies become incensed when their sacred cows are marched into the glaring light of scrutiny.

Consider yourself then just typical.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Oh my. You're angry. I understand that. So many really angry fundies become incensed when their sacred cows are marched into the glaring light of scrutiny.
> 
> Consider yourself then just typical.



You don't even realize that I am not a fundamentalist, and you consider my 'sacred cows' marched into a glaring light of scrutiny?

roflmao, once again, thanks for the chuckle.

So what beliefs that I share have you scrutinized, dumbass?


----------



## MaryL (Jun 9, 2013)

Anyone here actually have, say God's droppings or DNA sample or something that might resolve this issue besides rhetoric? I pray to god that this thread ends, but it just keeps on going like the Eveready bunny.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Anyone here actually have, say God's droppings or DNA sample or something that might resolve this issue besides rhetoric? I pray to god that this thread ends, but it just keeps on going like the Eveready bunny.



That's funny, does anyone have DNA for pi, or 'e', or the Pythagorean theorem.

If you don't like the thread, why force yourself to read it?

Fly away little blue bird and don't stress yourself.

If God exists you will find out one day, and if He doesn't, you wont realize it anyway, in all likelihood.

lol

But your post is a good example of how some people just cannot tolerate the thought of someone saying things they don't like.

I mean, you don't like this conversation, then just stay out of it. But no, you gotta come on in and make a big whine about it.

ITs kind of like all these atheists that have to go fuck with Christians whenever they get the chance (but not with Muslims, because Muslims haven't been neutered yet, but the secularists are working on it, don't you worry). 

I don't believe in the Book of Mormon, but I don't go out of my way to fuck with Mormons on it; who cares? Its no skin off my nose.

But atheists just cant let it go. no, somewhere there maybe someone who is having a pleasant conversation about God; BUGLES! ALERT! ALERT! GO DERAIL THREAD! EMERGENCY!

lol, then they all jump in and act like ignoramuses when they think they are some kind of Oracle or something.

Its just too fucking bizrarro.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

lol


----------



## MaryL (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone here actually have, say God's droppings or DNA sample or something that might resolve this issue besides rhetoric? I pray to god that this thread ends, but it just keeps on going like the Eveready bunny.
> ...



Is the "F" word approved by god?  Its in the bible somewhere another.  Pi is a mathematical constant. It's just a fact. Like Old age, disease and suffering.  Unlike God, who is just another myth.  I shouldnt be posting here as I am just enabling a millennium old myth. God is a myth. Like Zeus, just a sad superstition, nothing more or less. Nothing to prove or disprove.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



NO, grasshopper, you are simply WRONG! Nothing in the definition of "evidence" says it is not subjective or is objective. That is an evaluation of the evidence based on perception. What you find to be "evidence" may not be considered valid as "evidence" to me. You may consider your "evidence" strong, and I may disagree that it is even "evidence" at all. 

Such is the case with spiritual evidence in this argument, you refuse to accept the spiritual evidence as evidence at all, due to your perception that spiritual nature doesn't exist. Almost EVERYTHING is "subjective" meaning, it is dependent upon our subjective minds to reason it and rationalize it. "Proof" is also subjective. It highly depends upon our perception of the strength of the "evidence." What you may think is weak evidence of something, I may believe as proof. 



> Here again, you are simply making unwarranted proclamations and inventing your own definitions to prove your point. This is again, intellectual dishonesty on a fundamental level.  There are differing kinds of evidence, each with differing standards: anecdotal, empirical, historical... Spiritual evidence falls into the category of anecdotal evidence, which is the least trusted form of evidence, and the least acceptable in a court room as evidence.



We're not talking about physical evidence in a court of law, are we? If that is the criteria that a spiritual entity needs to provide, I have already admitted it can never do this. It's highly illogical to expect it to. Still, "evidence" is subjective, and if it were not, we wouldn't need courts of law. A prosecutor could present a judge with the non-subjective evidence, and convictions could be given with no need for a trial. The fact of the matter is, what the prosecutor may believe is "evidence" to "prove" a case, a jury may simply not agree. This is because evidence is always subjective. 




> In court cases, eye-witness testimony is used to corroborate empirical evidence, but alone, is not considered sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty. The same reason courts disallow eye-witness testimony to count as evidence, is the same reason human belief is not evidence. We are not reliable indicators of what is real or what reality is about. This is why the scientific method is so important, and has been successful at getting out of the way of our built-in cognitive bias, which is a topic you have completely failed to address. I have refuted every one of your  points in the OP, at length. However, you simply ignore me, and continue on believing what you want. This isn't a debate. This is a monologue that you keep on repeating. You aren't interacting with anyone here.



But we're not talking about proving god physically exists in a court of law... if that were the argument, you'd win. I've never said the scientific method is not important, it is YOU who abandons the scientific method and claims there is no way to prove a spiritual existence. In fact, even when we apply what science knows about animal behaviors, and what it shows us is the history of human spiritual connection, what the evolutionist theories predict... you run like hell from that, and deny, deny, deny. You fabricate excuses and explanations which completely contradict anything science says about nature, or anything we've ever observed in nature, and you maintain that you have some kind of rational "proof" that god doesn't actually exist, when that is just not the case. 



> I have, at this point, pegged you as a young earth christian fundamentalist creationist. There is none more irrational than this ilk of believers.



You can peg me however you please, I have repeatedly stated, for all intents and purposes, I am an Atheist. I have no theistic beliefs which conform to any organized religion. If I am any kind of Christian, that statement alone, just condemned me to hell for eternity, for I have forsaken the God of Abraham, an unforgivable sin, according to the Bible. So why the hell would I do that, just to fool you on a message board?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


you mean the one you comb your hair around?
no problem.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


they do? but that's a symptom of the disorder..
notice how fast JB went from rational and reasonable to the you don't know shit rampage. when his belief was threatened...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 9, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


axed me?


----------



## MaryL (Jun 9, 2013)

OK. I dare GOD to show  up here. Right here, right now. Here and NOW.  On the USMB or anywhere to show his/her undeniable existence, here and now. Bring it!  Do we have to wait another couple of thousand years? Oh man.  I thought that might work. People drink purple Kool-Aid and find out the same thing.  They must have been really disappointed.  Lies , delusions  and myths aren&#8217;t far apart.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

MaryL said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Of course it is, He made it.



MaryL said:


> Its in the bible somewhere another.  Pi is a mathematical constant. It's just a fact. Like Old age, disease and suffering.  Unlike God, who is just another myth.



You do know what an unwarranted assertion is, right?

God is not a myth. See how that works, you fucking idiot?



MaryL said:


> I shouldnt be posting here as I am just enabling a millennium old myth. God is a myth. Like Zeus, just a sad superstition, nothing more or less. Nothing to prove or disprove.



Your not enabling, you are acting in frustration that there is any normal people who believe in God. You so desperately want to think you are normal, but you are not, thank God.

But I have more respect for you than I have for Christian cowards who will help shove more of their own into the ovens.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

MaryL said:


> OK. I dare GOD to show  up here. Right here, right now. Here and NOW.  On the USMB or anywhere to show his/her undeniable existence, here and now. Bring it!  Do we have to wait another couple of thousand years? Oh man.  I thought that might work. People drink purple Kool-Aid and find out the same thing.  They must have been really disappointed.  Lies , delusions  and myths arent far apart.



Lol, I dare Chuck Norris to show himself right before me right now!

Wow, he isn't here, so Chuck Norris must not be real.

lol, you are so stupid you don't realize how stupid you really are and how ridiculous your bullshit is.

Get a brain, so you don't hurt anyone, OK? Steal it, borrow it, go dumpster diving, anything. You are a danger to yourself and anyone within arms reach, so please, get a brain.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> axed me?



lol, yeah, I wanted you to understand, dumbshit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



lol, show me where someone threatened my beliefs? Hell no one has described my beliefs as of yet, so I doubt anyone has threatened anything at all.

daws, does your mommy know you are on the computer again?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Heheh, now you are fantasizing about me combing your hair?

This is your preferred level of discussion; school yard bullshit because you do not know what the fuck you are talking about, loser.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Time to plant this fruit once and for all you moron. 

I forgot this little gem. Daws "I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me..." 

This had nothing to do with the question dummy. Now look up gene theory.

The question would not be a genetics question lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7344796-post16536.html

Now for the big lie  You did do what you said you didn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7345652-post16545.html

Seriously daws you don't know shit concerning science and you claimed you have more of a science background plus you had 6 years of science not by what I read. Please continue  

More bullshit

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html

Twice you did 

Now for the original question.

Quote of my question.

"You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.

According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?"

Geez, it is fun showing what a stupid dick and liar you're.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Didn't you use the term Typo the other day to excuse yourself


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 9, 2013)

MaryL said:


> OK. I dare GOD to show  up here. Right here, right now. Here and NOW.  On the USMB or anywhere to show his/her undeniable existence, here and now. Bring it!  Do we have to wait another couple of thousand years? Oh man.  I thought that might work. People drink purple Kool-Aid and find out the same thing.  They must have been really disappointed.  Lies , delusions  and myths arent far apart.



One of these days Alice.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Once again, you contradict yourself. You are saying evidence is subjective, and it is not subjective.  Make up your fucking mind. I pointed this out, and you responded to me as if I didn't. When I said "evidence is not subjective," that is true, yet here you are trying to pass it off as such. Again, you can't claim evidence is neither subjective or objective, and then talk about how "proof" is subjective, and evidence is whatever one makes it. You are IMPLYING that evidence is subjective with your usage of the term, while denying that it is defined as subjective. This is intellectual dishonesty. 

Evidence is not necessarily subjective because it is neither objective or subjective, until you specify what KIND of evidence: anecdotal or empirical. Empirical evidence IS objective. Anecdotal is subjective. The kind of evidence you are positing is anecdotal evidence, and is hence, subjective and categorically unreliable.

Anecdotal Evidence (wiki):

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population."


Subjective Validation: (wiki)

"Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them.[1] In other words, a person whose opinion is affected by subjective validation will perceive two unrelated events (i.e., a coincidence) to be related because their personal belief demands that they be related. Closely related to the Forer effect, subjective validation is an important element in cold reading. It is considered to be the main reason behind most reports of paranormal phenomena.[2] According to Bob Carroll, psychologist Ray Hyman is considered to be the foremost expert on subjective validation and cold reading."


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy. In specific, correlation does not imply causation, and more specifically, the _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy ("with this, therefore because of this). (wiki)

Questionable cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The questionable cause &#8211; also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa ("non-cause for cause" in Latin) &#8211; is a category of informal fallacies in which a cause is incorrectly identified.

Fallacies of questionable cause include:
Circular cause and consequence
Correlation implies causation (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc)
Fallacy of the single cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Regression fallacy
Spurious relationship
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Third-cause fallacy
Wrong direction"





Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Correlation Does Not Imply Causation:* (one of the causal fallacies above)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this")...


"For any two correlated events A and B, the following relationships are possible:
A causes B;
B causes A;
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is coincidental."

"*The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:* (one of the two fallacies under "correlation implies causation")

A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

A may be the cause of B.

B may be the cause of A.

*some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.*

there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.

the "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained."

*So, to tie this in, the fact that human existence is correlated with belief in a spiritual realm, this by itself does not imply that this correlation is caused by a spiritual realm. *


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



What the hell are you trying to say, idiot? 

Evidence, like "proof" is nothing BUT subjective. It all depends on perception. As I said, if evidence were not subjective, we would have no reason for trials, evidence could be presented and that would be the proof, and since it wasn't subjective, no one could ever argue against it, and the case could be decided without a jury. But evidence IS subjective, it depends on your perception of the evidence, whether you accept it as valid or not, is a subjective evaluation. I don't know why you are idiotically hung up on this. 

Are you REALLY this stupid? You REALLY believe that any evidence is not subject to whether or not you consider it valid and objective? You just tried to explain it, and you couldn't get through a paragraph without contradicting your own reasoning, but that doesn't even seem to penetrate your hard head. It sounds more like you just want to argue something silly, to avoid the topic here, or to somehow establish that YOUR evidence can't be objected to, while you dismiss MY evidence. Now, if the definition of "evidence" said that it's up to newpolitics to determine whether it is valid and legitimate evidence, and no one can question it, then I would agree with you, but that's not the definition we find. 

All evidence is completely subject to interpretation of the said evidence, it is subjective. There is no argument here, you are making an inane point that you cannot establish with logic or common sense. One man's "evidence" is another man's "bullshit" and this has been illustrated in this very thread.


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

> This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy.



You've not proven one thing in the OP to be a fallacy, causal or otherwise. This is your OPINION and it is not supported by anything but your OPINION.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

That information is common knowledge, and is available with a quick search: 

4.54 billion years.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> > This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> You've not proven one thing in the OP to be a fallacy, causal or otherwise. This is your OPINION and it is not supported by anything but your OPINION.



The OP is an opinion.


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > This entire thread is premised on a causal fallacy.
> ...



Again, shit stain, you have not proven the OP to be a fallacy, casual or otherwise. You've also not proven that evidence is not subjective. You continue to prove you are an obtuse jackass.


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nonsense.

Everything I find, says _*"it is believed to be"*_ 4.54 billion years old.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

 What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and it isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false. We experience objective reality subjectively, which means there is an objective reality that exists independently from our minds, with a truth that we do not decide, only arrive at if we are able to.  We don't get to choose what is true and what is false about objective reality, yet this is what you are attempting to imply. All we can do, is discover the truth about objective reality as best as possible using our five sense, the scientific method (since it has proven highly reliable), and each other to verify our findings and eliminate bias (peer review). It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that). 

The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality. In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality (unless you want to claim we are consistently getting lucky, which I will gladly laugh at). Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG. 

The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically  objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective. Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's fucking mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you. You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted. You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist. However, we have developed categories of evidence, some of which are less prone to subjective alternation. Anecdotal is the LEAST reliable, which is what you have. Empirical evidence, especially since it can be verified by other observers, is far more reliable. You do not have empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, or a syllogistic argument that is valid and sound, your claim falls flat. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.

The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god, which implies empirical, objectively existing, demonstrable evidence. Your evidence is anecdotal, and doesn't actually exist, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual when these attributes can not go together, by your own admission when you said the spiritual can not exist in the physical (objectively), because then it would cease to be spiritual. You have gone back on yourself with this multiple times, so I'll just cite one side of your contradictory stance. Anyway, This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof. Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective. A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of  evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards. Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible within certain scientific disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, but are okay with inference within other disciplines, which itself is special pleading. The  hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And daws couldn't care less what you said or didn't say. He does not want to understand what you are trying to share with him. He is only trolling and being a dick.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Good greif, so now you think the laws of science are absolute? You are the fucking idiot, not Boss.  Proof *is* subjective and requires confidence in the scientist and those who peer review his work and there have been multiple failures here as well.

While I agree that science has been the more certain tool of investigation it can be wrong as well and has been time and time again and it  has very narrow scope.

But I think it is clear that you are not interested in a discussion of these things, but only in provocation and ridicule. IT was plain Boss has a point and you damn him for even attempting to discuss it.

In short, NP, you are a posturing hypocrite, and a fraud.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



ROFLMAO

Yeah, they say its that, but that estimate is going to change within the next ten years, dude.

There simply is not enough accuracy and the derived significant digits of measure to pin point an age at better than 3 digits of accuracy, EVEN IF ALL THE UNDERLYING THEORY IS CORRECT.

Current model most agree to is the accretion model and it doesn't give a fixed point in time that the Earth formed,
"The earliest material found in the Solar System is dated to 4.5672±0.0006 bya;[34] therefore, it is inferred that the Earth must have been formed by accretion around this time. By 4.54±0.04 bya[23] the primordial Earth had formed."


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Hey dumbass, read carefully: The OP IS AN OPINION BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE. 

You have, by your own evidential standards, made your own assertion impossible to prove. That's a big LOL.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



First of all, What the hell are the "laws of science?" Secondly, I didn't say anywhere that these so-called "laws of science" are absolute. Thirdly, It is only  the gullible and faith-filled that claim anything to be absolute.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Yeah you only said, "The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality.' Silly me thinking you were making any reference to the resultant laws of science, lol.

Another semantic dodge from you, no surprise.



newpolitics said:


> Secondly, I didn't say anywhere that these so-called "laws of science" are absolute.



Then how can they be objectively true and not under any subjectivity? Those damned logarithmic charts are VITAL to any experiment, lol



newpolitics said:


> Thirdly, It is only  the gullible and faith-filled that claim anything to be absolute.



Unlike your declaration that the scientific method is objective?

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



In your biased opinion.

Which isn't worth shit.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The OP is an opinion, based on zero empirical evidence and faulty logic.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Empirical evidence is irrelevant to understanding our universe as orderly in the first place. That the behavior of the universe can be accurately described at all in human cognitive terms is axiomatic, an assumption scientists simply start with.

I see less fault to his logic than I do with your unwarranted assertion. At least he is trying to support his assertion with fact and reason.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I still don't know what the "laws of science" are. I can't respond to an incoherent strawman.

I never said the scientific method was objective. I said the scientific method was the best method at ascertaining truths about objective reality. 

You need to pay to attention to the words that are written in front of you, and not simply read what you think you want to read so you can argue against something that is easier for you to refute. This is how straw-men are formed, which is all you've been arguing against.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You're right. We have no empirical evidence about what caused the big bang, or if there even needs to be a cause. Therefore, you have no justification for drawing a conclusion either way, including god. Inferring there must be a cause is the composition fallacy: inferring that what is true of the part, is true of the whole. Your second sentence about an axiom makes no sense. The only assumption anyone starts with is that our observations correspond to a consistent reality that is available for investigation. 

You see less fault in his logic because you agree with his conclusion. He has no logic and no evidence. By his logic, if I believe I can fly, then that is evidence that I can fly... So, I can fly. Being that this is clearly illogical, so is his argument, which rests merely on human belief. His use of evolution and Occam's Razor are entirely inaccurate and bastardizes those two things.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You're right. We have no empirical evidence about what caused the big bang, or if there even needs to be a cause. Therefore, you have no justification for drawing a conclusion either way, including god. Inferring there must be a cause is the composition fallacy: inferring that what is true of the part, is true of the whole. Your second sentence about an axiom makes no sense. The only assumption anyone starts with is that our observations correspond to a consistent reality that is available for investigation.
> 
> You see less fault in his logic because you agree with his conclusion. He has no logic and no evidence. By his logic, if I believe I can fly, then that is evidence that I can fly... So, I can fly. Being that this is clearly illogical, so is his argument, which rests merely on human belief. His use of evolution and Occam's Razor are entirely inaccurate and bastardizes those two things.




Damn you are a patient man.


I find it astonishing that anyone could be persuaded by or defend the argument that the superstitious beliefs and practices of primitive humans is proof of a spiritual reality even though what they believed and practiced has been irrefutably proven wrong and irrational.


However,  this phenomenon may give insight into figurative scriptural references to 'the dead', people whose minds have been rendered useless by being defiled and contaminated by the unclean flesh/teaching of lower beasts who swallow any irrational garbage they hear without ruminating.


If you fill your mind with irrational nonsense  it will contaminate your thought process and pervert and distort everything you see feel hear think say and do and you will become confused and say and do stupid things.


this is the essence of kosher law whose wisdom has been unintentionally proven and the consequences for failing to guard over the purity of the mind perfectly demonstrated by the original poster of this ridiculous thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That is if you trust the current dating methods that is what they say.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.
> 
> What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and it isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false.



We weren't talking about what is true and false or objective reality. Don't wriggle away from what you stated and try to pretend we are arguing something different. 



> We experience objective reality subjectively, which means there is an objective reality that exists independently from our minds, with a truth that we do not decide, only arrive at if we are able to.  We don't get to choose what is true and what is false about objective reality, yet this is what you are attempting to imply.



No it's not, we're not talking about objective reality. Why do you keep trying to spin your idiotic statement into something else? You stated that evidence is not subjective, and indeed, evidence IS subjective. 



> All we can do, is discover the truth about objective reality as best as possible using our five sense, the scientific method (since it has proven highly reliable), and each other to verify our findings and eliminate bias (peer review). It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that).



We're not talking about objective reality... had you stated that objective reality wasn't subjective, it would make sense to be talking about it here, but that's not what you said. You claimed *evidence* was, "by definition," not subjective, and evidence is always subjective. 



> The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality.



The truths about reality in the physical material universe. Like the truth that humans have always been spiritual. The most successful method at ascertaining truths about spiritual reality are gained through human spirituality. 



> In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality (unless you want to claim we are consistently getting lucky, which I will gladly laugh at).



Everything in science is prediction of probability. Science deals with the material physical universe, not spiritual nature. God and spiritual nature created science and the physical universe, so it's not surprising it is predictable and some things are more or less probable. 



> Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG.



Humans are still very spiritually connected. Should we go through all the things science thought and was wrong about? Of course, if science had adopted your philosophy on evidence not being subjective, there is no telling what wrong-headed science we'd be worshiping today. 



> The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically  objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective.



Pay attention... I said the definition doesn't indicate evidence must be subjective or objective. This is because you stated "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and that is a false statement. I correctly stated that subjectivity and objectivity are rationales we apply based on our perceptions of the evidence. Evidence is not altruistic or unassailable, it can be disputed, and this is because evidence is subjective. From there, you have chosen to run away from your false claim and pretend we are talking about something else. 



> Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's fucking mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you.



I'm perfectly sorted and not the least bit confused. You are the one who claimed evidence, by definition, is not subjective. I merely challenged your idiocy. Now you are trying to walk that back, change the subject and pretend you were talking about something else, and hurling insults at me as fast as you can. It's amusing and funny to watch you spin, not frustrating to me in the least. 



> You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted.



Evidential standards which apply to physical evidence in courts, are not applicable to spiritual entities, it is illogical to insist they be applied. As I said, if we were trying to prove physical existence of god in a court, there is no evidence to support this. I've never argued otherwise, but god is a spiritual entity, which doesn't provide physical evidence. If your mind can accept spiritual evidence, the spiritual evidence is overwhelming, and this is why billions of people over thousands of years, have practiced spirituality, and continue to do so. 



> You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist. However, we have developed categories of evidence, some of which are less prone to subjective alternation.



But I thought, by definition, all evidence was not subjective? Now you are saying something different. Epistemology is simply the theory of knowledge. It can just as easily be rationally applied to examination of spiritual nature and spiritual evidence, you just don't believe in spiritual nature or spiritual evidence. 



> Anecdotal is the LEAST reliable, which is what you have. Empirical evidence, especially since it can be verified by other observers, is far more reliable. You do not have empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, or a syllogistic argument that is valid and sound, your claim falls flat. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.



You also don't have empirical evidence that god doesn't exist or that human spiritual belief is a fallacy or delusion. Billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years, confirm an intrinsic human connection to spiritual nature. The evidence of this is indeed, empirical. There is no physical evidence of material existence of a spiritual entity, and if there ever is such a discovery, the spiritual becomes physical. You are demanding illogical evidence. It's not any different than me demanding that you have God confirm your scientific theories for me, before I will accept them as valid. 



> The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god, which implies empirical, objectively existing, demonstrable evidence. Your evidence is anecdotal, and doesn't actually exist, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual when these attributes can not go together, by your own admission when you said the spiritual can not exist in the physical (objectively), because then it would cease to be spiritual. You have gone back on yourself with this multiple times, so I'll just cite one side of your contradictory stance. Anyway, This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof.



Again, you are completely wrong. Proof is even more subjective than evidence. Science does not deal in "certainty." Nothing in science claims to be certain and absolute, it is all predicated on probability and prediction. Something with very high predictable probability, can be subjectively evaluated as "certain" by man, but that is reasoning and perception. 

Spiritual evidence, for those who accept it, is certainly not anecdotal. The fact that you reject spiritual nature, makes it anecdotal to you, from your perception. I have not argued otherwise. You continue to try and apply illogical criteria to spirituality and spiritual existence, and since spiritual existence means something completely different than physical existence, you can't relate. 



> Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective.



70,000+ years... billions and billions of human testimonials. 



> A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of  evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards.



Now you are back to admitting that evidence is subjective. A fossil materially exists in a physical state that can be confirmed by physical science. I've not contradicted this. Whether I subjectively think fossils prove evolution, is a determination made on my perception of the evidence. However, evolution neither disproves god or spiritual nature. 



> Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible within certain scientific disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, but are okay with inference within other disciplines, which itself is special pleading.



I don't know what theists deny, I am not a theist. I've not denied evolution, although, I have pointed out there is no evidence of cross-genus speciation. There is also no special pleading, those who don't accept spiritual nature can never accept spiritual evidence. It is a "special pleading" to demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical nature. 



> The  hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.



My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 10, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...






> *OP*: We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.*




no, there is not an instance of your using the term "pure" I am aware of - nor any discussion from you of an objective corollary between your god and the physical universe.

did your god spit [sic] in dirt and create life - "Definitive proof that God exists!" - if you fail to believe at inception life must be pure, ok or the same for a DNA molecule or as well  according to you there is inherently positive and negative than one over the other ...

however for the religious the opposite of the above does seem factual and necessary to a process that did lead to the creation of life and when / if fully understandable may answer the question of imortality ... 

so is there a corollary between how you have defined god - (The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you) and the creation of the universe and life ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Your posts are intriguing to me, because I can never figure out if you are genius stuck inside a moron's brain, or an insane person exhibiting signs of genius. Your convoluted statements morph into convoluted and confusing questions, and I have trouble discerning what exactly you are asking me. 

I defined what I personally believe is god, to satisfy the incessant calls for me to stipulate this information. I have admitted that my perception of god could be wrong, but it is my understanding. The interesting thing here is, I believe that god manifests itself in various ways with different individuals, meaning that my god and someone else's god can both be true at the same time. We have a hard time comprehending this, because our physical reality doesn't afford two different truths at the same time. However, in spiritual nature, two things can be true at the same time. Spiritual nature is not bound by physical nature or standards of the material universe. 

I posit the idea that spiritual nature created the universe, because we theorize there was no physical universe prior to the big bang. Nothing in the physical universe could have created the physical universe because it didn't exist yet. Since we know, through observation of human behavior over all our existence, that spiritual nature is certainly present, it stands to reason this was the creating force of the universe and life itself.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > axed me?
> ...


I already understand you suffer from dyslexia among other disorders.
arguing from a false premise and hubris just to name a few!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


once again proving my point for me.
this post is a good example of overreaction to having your gaged rattled.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


yep dyslexia...


----------



## klatu (Jun 10, 2013)

This conversation is only going on, as it has been for ever and a day, because of the presumption, theologically built into all Christian/Judeo teaching and tradition, whether fundamentalist, orthodox or otherwise, that a fully demonstrable proof, one that meets all Enlightenment criteria is not possible. Ironically science shares this opinion with religion! 

But lets start with a definition: The only truly definitive proof of God would be by a path of faith 'revealed' by God which is then confirmed by God in a direct, irrefutable intervention into the natural world. Few would dispute this in principle. Well that seemingly impossible principle has now happened! And there could be a lot of theological gnashing of teeth in the near future.

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will  and ultimate proof!

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search to discover His  'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. 

Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. I've started testing this new teaching for myself. And testable truth trumps all opinion. However ancient, learned, scholastic or otherwise. To test or not to test, that is the question and the measure of noble hearts? For more info Google: The Final Freedoms


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


all this effort to cover your lies .if you put that much effort into actual  science you'd be a lot less willfully ignorant 

none of my "quotes" are bullshit but your attempt to make them seem that way is...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


an after the fact qualification is still a lie.
you posts on the creationist thread had no such qualifiers. 
man the fuck up and take responsibility for your actions..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


yes I did,  if you read Jb reply he like yourself is attempting to BullShit his way out of it .
that being said what ever non point you attempting to make was as always an epic fail.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The only one lying and is ignorant of the facts are you. People can read what you posted and what I posted nitwit.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The only one needing to man up is you moron.

Your credibility what little you had is all gone.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You have higher standards for others but I guess that should be expected since you're lower then whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Been addressed dummy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

I can't believe someone that is exposed as a fraud and a liar would continue showing up to the thread.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bahahahahah! aren't we miss little condescending.
I known the myth and it's just that a myth..
willful ignorance and false sky gods do not evidence make.
sharing a mental disorder is not my idea of a good time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not what I was trying to show you


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


lol! and you say you're not paranoid.
the only reason you don't believe them is there correctness shatters your myth.


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

Daws, please stop flooding the thread with your bullshit, before AVG-JOE has to close it again to clean up! Make your point or get off the pot! Use the multi-quote feature if you have multiple turds saved up, but for $%#@ sake, please stop flooding the thread!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


they have and you're wrong..


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2013)

klatu said:


> This conversation is only going on, as it has been for ever and a day, because of the presumption, theologically built into all Christian/Judeo teaching and tradition, whether fundamentalist, orthodox or otherwise, that a fully demonstrable proof, one that meets all Enlightenment criteria is not possible. Ironically science shares this opinion with religion!
> 
> But lets start with a definition: The only truly definitive proof of God would be by a path of faith 'revealed' by God which is then confirmed by God in a direct, irrefutable intervention into the natural world. Few would dispute this in principle. Well that seemingly impossible principle has now happened! And there could be a lot of theological gnashing of teeth in the near future.
> 
> ...



Interesting perspective.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you can always dream!
funny how you presume to judge something you neither  have nor will ever have.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Nope they are not exact and there are many flaws with them.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong again. I have a high standard for myself.
your answer has no bearing on the point I made ..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


yes it has once correctly and twice falsely.
your response is superfluous ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh and by the way would you care to share how the Gene theory answered my question originally asked ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I can't believe someone that is exposed as a fraud and a liar would continue showing up to the thread.


now your reduced to making shit up. 
the same could be said about you the difference is it would be true.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you can't understand I don't know nor no one else does that is your problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe someone that is exposed as a fraud and a liar would continue showing up to the thread.
> ...



Someone is getting desperate.

So how does the Gene theory answer the original question I asked you ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


what you were trying to show me is false.
what you do show me is a conceded, willfully ignorant slap dick with a religious obsession.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


not enough to prove the incorrect..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

I guess Daws is suggesting a Gene is a Rna molecule LOL!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not to someone that don't want to believe it but yes there is plenty.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


and beat a dead horse some more? naw!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Bump for daws!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong again it's you who lacks understanding.. defiantly not my problem..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



This is priceless ignorance at it's finest.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess Daws is suggesting a Gene is a Rna molecule LOL!



Bump for Daws!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge attempt in progress!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And you're doing a very bad job at it.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess Daws is suggesting a Gene is a Rna molecule LOL!


now you're making false assumption to yourself..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

Daws just admit you're full of shit and the agony will be over.

Man up dickhead.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I guess Daws is suggesting a Gene is a Rna molecule LOL!
> ...



That is what your answer to me insinuated


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that's doesn't  and are.
and belief is unnecessary. a fact stands whether you believe it or not..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes yours is...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you'd expect that since I'm not the one who's dodging.
btw why are you bumping your own posts?
that's kinda strange even for you!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not that anyone ever has but no one will take you serious anymore you're a habitual liar, good day loser.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws just admit you're full of shit and the agony will be over.
> 
> Man up dickhead.


I assume you mean yours ..I'm having a great time.
speaking of full of shit you might want to change your depends.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that makes sense  since you have no idea what an insinuation is .
here I'll help you: 
in·sin·u·a·tion

 [ in sìnnyoo áysh'n ]   


1.sly hint: something unpleasant artfully and indirectly suggested to another person
2.act of insinuating: the act of hinting at something unpleasant or suggesting something indirectly and gradually

lol!.......


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


day dream  believer and a homecoming QUEEN.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.



This is the same comment you cross posted in the creationist thread. Did you not understand (your being in a deep stupor), that I wasn't addressing your comments in this thread?

Really, dude, you have deep seated issues.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.


repeating bullshit does not make any less bullshit.


----------



## numan (Jun 10, 2013)

'

My goodness! Two pages (at least) of ad hominems!

How exciting!!

.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 10, 2013)

The beat goes on.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> My goodness! Two pages (at least) of ad hominems!
> 
> ...


that happens when Ywc is off his meds...and somebody has to talk him down.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 10, 2013)

> So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!




even if / as spiritual evidence proves there is a God, so what - what use is that knowledge if a corollary to the physical universe is not established - why the fundies have their Bible ...

such as there may be a path to be found written in the Christian Bible, not Christianity but truisms from antiquity to the Spirituality you have described as a path to make the physical connection with it that is allowable when proper conditions are meant.

so Bossman, at least the Christians are reaching out for what they believe - what is the point of your post greater than the same for centuries as the same without answers as you as well avoid them other than refuting Atheism -

isn't purity a necessary ingredient to harness Spiritual Energy ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't believe humans can harness spiritual energy. I don't believe a human has to be "pure" to connect to spiritual nature, all that is required is belief and meditation. 

My point is not to refute Atheists, because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs. I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god, and I believe that's what was accomplished. Those who disagree, refute the spiritual evidence, which I also predicted in my argument.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!
> ...


Your self congratulatory chest heaving is silly. Nowhere did you make a case for any prior conception of god(s). You continue to hold to the position that your "because I say so" claim is true until "disproved". That's very convenient when you admit that physical / material evidence does not exist for your Immaterial, spirit world. I cannot disprove "nothing" but then again, you never made a case for anything but human fear and superstition.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!
> ...



Watch out for the seething anger that will come your way.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!
> ...





I'm not sure your answer is not a plethora of contradictions  ... "to connect to spiritual nature" - "because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs" - "I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god"  ---> ?

yes, the above does accurately describe mankind's search over the past 70,000 years, indeed.

i only meant reaching a state of purity would be significant for actually making contact with expectations greater than simply "preying" for success.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Your self congratulatory chest heaving is silly. Nowhere did you make a case for any prior conception of god(s). You continue to hold to the position that your "because I say so" claim is true until "disproved". That's very convenient when you admit that physical / material evidence does not exist for your Immaterial, spirit world. I cannot disprove "nothing" but then again, you never made a case for anything but human fear and superstition.



Well I think congratulatory chest heaving is in order, after all, I've definitively proven god exists. No small feat for an atheist, I assure you.

I have also demonstrated that it is your arguments which rely on "because I say so" while mine are backed by both scientific and spiritual evidence you are unable to refute. 

I've never said that physical/material evidence does not exist for spiritual nature. Human behavior over 70k years, is certainly material evidence. Darwin's theories are certainly physical evidence. You lack any physical or material evidence to support your claims about fear and superstition. I've shown where both of those assumptions defy the laws of nature. 

Finally, you admit you can't disprove god or spiritual nature, so you call it "nothing" in spite of billions and billions of humans who disagree with you. 95% of humans have always believed in something you claim doesn't exist, even though you can't prove it doesn't exist and you can't refute any of my arguments with valid science, logic, nature, or anything more than "because I say so" arguments. 

Throughout this thread, I have been met with stubborn disbelievers, who seem to be on an 'immoral crusade' to renounce god, and want to turn this thread into a theological or religious debate. I've been ridiculed unmercifully, called a Christian Fundamentalist, and accused of hiding my true agenda. When you haven't been trying to derail the thread with superfluous nonsense, you are outright lying about things I have stated. And this has gone on for days and days, page after page. Disbelievers, devoutly worshiping their disbelief, and challenging anyone who dares to question their disbelief. All you people need is a hymnal.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your self congratulatory chest heaving is silly. Nowhere did you make a case for any prior conception of god(s). You continue to hold to the position that your "because I say so" claim is true until "disproved". That's very convenient when you admit that physical / material evidence does not exist for your Immaterial, spirit world. I cannot disprove "nothing" but then again, you never made a case for anything but human fear and superstition.
> ...



I must have missed your definite proof of God. Which god(s) have you definitely proven?


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> I'm not sure your answer is not a plethora of contradictions  ... "to connect to spiritual nature" - "because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs" - "I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god"  ---> ?
> 
> yes, the above does accurately describe mankind's search over the past 70,000 years, indeed.
> 
> i only meant reaching a state of purity would be significant for actually making contact with expectations greater than simply "preying" for success.



I admit, it does indeed sound like a contradiction, that I am an atheist who believes in god. As I've explained, the god I believe spiritually exists, is non theistic and doesn't conform to religious incarnations. It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity or force, which humans have always had the ability to connect with. Religion is more physical evidence that spiritual nature does exist, it prompts men to forge and surround themselves with these religious beliefs. 

I still don't understand what you mean with regard to a "state of purity" or how that relates to our ability to spiritually connect. First of all, you aren't defining "purity" at all here, I have no idea what you mean. The fact that 95% of all humans have always been spiritual, shows that there is no special attribute required of humans, other than spiritual faith. You do have to believe in spiritual nature to connect to it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You should read the OP. I did not prove any specific incarnation of god, and made the case that such a distinction is not required to prove god's spiritual existence. You and others continue to be hung up on this, and I believe it is because you feel more confident bashing a specific incarnation of god, like the Christian God or God of Abraham. When I disallow this, and confine you to the spiritual nature we know exists, you are lost. 

The "definitive" attribute is  completely dependent upon your ability to accept and acknowledge spiritual evidence. Just as you can "definitively prove" something with science, if I reject your science, I can never realize your definitive proof. It doesn't make it any less definitive.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure your answer is not a plethora of contradictions  ... "to connect to spiritual nature" - "because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs" - "I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god"  ---> ?
> ...



The Christian God is a spirit and is theistic with creative forces what is the difference in your view ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I see. I must first accept your "because I say so" argument. Subsequently, proof of the gods will be revealed. 

You're not a Kool Aid salesman by chance?


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



There may not be any, I don't claim to know this. As I said earlier, it is spiritually possible for god to exist as a personal god, meaning that my god and your god are completely different, yet also the same. We can't wrap our minds around such a thing, because it seems to defy logic as we know it. Again, we don't need to fully understand something to determine it does exist.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


How interesting that gawds can be completely different, yet the same. I suppose In your spirit realms, (and with a particular audience),  such nonsensical claims will find some only too willing to mouth the bait.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> I see. I must first accept your "because I say so" argument. Subsequently, proof of the gods will be revealed.
> 
> You're not a Kool Aid salesman by chance?



My argument has not been "because I say so" and I've addressed this lie enough. YOUR argument in refutation, is indeed a "because I say so" argument, so you are literally accusing me of what YOU are doing. 

Hollie... If you travelled to the deep dark jungles of Africa, and found a primitive tribe of natives who had no concept of modern science.... and you began explaining to them, how rain comes, or what causes lightning... wouldn't they need some belief in science first, before they could begin to accept your explanations? If they just rejected your explanations and insisted that the gods made the rain and lightning, there wouldn't be anything you could do to convince them otherwise... am I correct? What if they sarcastically bowed up and said... _Oh, so I have to accept your science mumbo jumbo before everything is revealed?_ Could you ever educate these closed minded people? You see, we have the same problem here with you and spiritual evidence. You reject it, refuse to believe in it, and unless you do believe in it, you can't find the evidence to prove the existence of god. 

I'm regretfully sorry that you are closed minded and intolerant of what others believe. I wish I knew of a way to open your mind to the possibilities, but it's beyond my ability. All I can do is continue to point out the flaws in your counter-arguments, and present the evidence I have presented. You have successfully demonstrated that I can't budge the door of your mind, which remains firmly closed to spiritual understanding.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I see. I must first accept your "because I say so" argument. Subsequently, proof of the gods will be revealed.
> ...



Oh gawd. You need a bigger shovel.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's funny, the longer you participate in this thread, the harder it becomes for you to generate new ways to attack me personally. Here, you almost seem to be attacking me for being a "populist" because most humans are spiritually connected. Of course, make sure to refer to "god" as "gawds" and claim my arguments are "nonsensical" ...otherwise, people might get the impression that you haven't made your case to refute my arguments, right?

From what I clearly see, you've presented absolutely NOTHING in terms of an argument. You've interjected some shallow minded opinions and weak explanations, all of which I have refuted and shown to be defiant of nature and science themselves. Other than that, all you've done is ridicule and denigrate religion and religious beliefs, while hypocritically accusing others of making "because I say so" arguments. 

From a psychological perspective, you have confirmed without knowing, what your real intentions here are all about. Your last sentence tells us you believe the purpose of this discussion is to recruit others to believe as we do. That's precisely why you and others have devoted such time and energy into responding here, about something you supposedly have no belief in whatsoever. You're looking for warm bodies. You need more people to "side" with you and the disbelievers, because you fully realize how outnumbered you are. 

You shouldn't worry your empty little head about such things, there will always be plenty of people who close their minds to spirituality, because it makes it easier to be unaccountable. Lots of lazy minds would rather be unaccountable and not worry with spiritual connection. It takes courage and character to stand up for your spiritual beliefs, and a lot of people simply are cowards, they had rather deny their obvious spiritual self, and fight vehemently against any attempts to appeal to that aspect of their human nature.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It's funny, but when your argument is identified as promoting an absurdity, it takes you three paragraphs to recoiled in shocked surprise that anyone would point out the absurdity.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> It's funny, but when your argument is identified as promoting an absurdity, it takes you three paragraphs to recoiled in shocked surprise that anyone would point out the absurdity.



It's funny that you keep saying you've identified and pointed out absurdity in my arguments, when that is what I've done with your refutations. From the absurdity of your claims that spirituality was created by what spirituality causes... to the literal denial of human spiritual behavior which has existed for over 70k years. You absurdly defy science, nature, logic... doesn't matter, you are defiantly committed to keeping your mind firmly closed. 

I am sorry you interpreted shock and surprise in my reply. I assure you, it doesn't shock or surprise me, and if you read the OP, you'll find that I began by acknowledging you and others like you, who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, will predictably behave just as you have.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny, but when your argument is identified as promoting an absurdity, it takes you three paragraphs to recoiled in shocked surprise that anyone would point out the absurdity.
> ...



How is it that I've defied science, nature , logic... ?

I've hoped you would have been able to defend your claims to spirit worlds , which actually do defy science, nature, logic...


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Apparently, you aren't reading my replies to your nonsense. I'm not sure that my explaining it again will help, because I think you'll actually have to READ what is posted, in order for it to penetrate your cranium. I will give a brief condensed version of what has been said:

You argued that human spirituality was a result of sentience. However, other animals have sentience and do not have any indication of spirituality. You claimed that spirituality was invented to cope with fears of death and the unknown. However, you can't offer any other similar example in all of nature, where such a phenomenon has happened. You also claimed it was caused by our complex brains, but other upper primates have brains which are just as complex. Chimps share 98% of our DNA, and their brain functions exactly like the brain of a human. Yet chimps have never exhibited spirituality. You and others have continued to maintain that human spirituality is nothing more than imagination, but this defies even the theories of Darwin himself. Persistent attributes throughout the existence of any species, are present for a reason fundamental to the species. They are never imaginary constructs. So we see, everything you have presented as a "reason" or "explanation" of human spirituality, simply defies science, logic, and laws of nature. 

Spiritual nature does not defy the laws of nature, it is a part of nature. Humans have practiced human spirituality as long as they have existed. You use the convenient fact that spiritual nature doesn't provide physical evidence, as your rationale for disbelief, but spiritual nature isn't supposed to have physical existence, or it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. You win the argument that god doesn't physically exist, I have no proof of that.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What other animals have sentience?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Good point Boss.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I see. I must first accept your "because I say so" argument. Subsequently, proof of the gods will be revealed.
> ...



Boss you are making to much sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This is the norm for daws and hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Absurdity is right down your alley hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Boss I would say there is plenty of evidence of God in the physical world because of his creations.

Hollie you can't be serious with your question.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Almost all upper primates have acute sentience and ability to reason. Even most mammals have some sentient ability, they hunt and gather food, they congregate in packs, someone even posted art work done by elephants earlier, this has been a fascinating thread. 

What I think is the deal here, is you and I have a different definition of "sentience" and that is why you continue to view "sentience" as unique to humans. I feel that if you explain this to me, we'll find that you believe the collective combination of attributes which make up "humanity" are what you are defining as "sentience" and that is not an accurate definition of the word. You are taking an intellectually dishonest shortcut, by claiming "sentience" as an explanation for everything. If that is your argument, our human spirituality is responsible for our "sentience" (by your def). There can be no other logical conclusion, because our "sentience" certainly is unique to the species, and so is our spirituality. 

Now, the next step, is for you to scientifically explain where our "sentience" came from. If you are certain it wasn't from our spiritual connection, which billions profess to... then it has to come from natural selection, evolutionary in nature... but... we find nothing else in nature that has these 'humanistic' attributes comprising "sentience." We find no trace of any other species of life, worshiping things that aren't real, or creating placebos for knowledge, or to cope with death... it doesn't happen anywhere else in the natural world. 

Pardon me, if all of this sounds like "because I say so" to you... I am only presenting legitimate and valid scientific points that we can look up and confirm as we please. Every argument you have presented, has been refuted with science, logic, and nature itself.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


is the purity you speak of  the Buddhist definition or the Christian?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


where I come from  we call that "if you can't dazzle um with brilliance baffle um with bullshit."
gotta give boss credit he can preachafy with the best long winded ones.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

posts# 2690-2694 are the most blatant case of sphincter sucking I've seen in years !
any body want to pitch in on some Vaseline? boss's anal aperture must really sting now!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature. 

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 11, 2013)

S.J. said:


> I have better proof than that, but nothing I would share with the swine on these boards.



Of course.    And you strike me as a fine representative of the 21st century christian.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nothing strange at all about my comment. Your explanations have been refuted with science and what we know about nature. Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms. Nothing you have yet to offer, disproves spiritual nature. Yet, you continue to act as though, something you've presented, has established this as a fact. Your ONLY solid argument seems to be, that spiritual nature doesn't have physical or material presence that you can detect. Of course, spiritual entities aren't supposed to have physical and material presence, or they would be physical entities. So the only point you have made, is irrelevant. 

There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is an attribute we've had for all our existence as a species in the physically natural world, so it is very much a part of nature. Indeed, it is an intrinsic behavior of humans, and has always been our most defining attribute. How can any sane person call that "supernatural?" It sounds perfectly NATURAL to me.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




It is odd that you describe my explanations (the natural world is absent spirit realms ), as being refuted by science. You don't seem to be paying attention. How does science refute a natural world?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

bodecea said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > I have better proof than that, but nothing I would share with the swine on these boards.
> ...


 don't you mean 12th century.? the willful ignorance hasn't changed.
sometimes I think "they" miss the good ole days when they could burn heretics for sport!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


is it just me? or have we heard the nonsense before?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do the same thing about scientific theories as you would the trinity learn it before you type


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> posts# 2690-2694 are the most blatant case of sphincter sucking I've seen in years !
> any body want to pitch in on some Vaseline? boss's anal aperture must really sting now!



Here is the pervert once again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not strange at all,you can't debate anything related to science because you don't know what it is.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.
> ...



If we are not talking about the truth or objective reality, then there is no point to your OP.



Boss said:


> > We experience objective reality subjectively, which means there is an objective reality that exists independently from our minds, with a truth that we do not decide, only arrive at if we are able to.  We don't get to choose what is true and what is false about objective reality, yet this is what you are attempting to imply.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If we are not talking about objective reality, then your argument is useless.  Since you just admitted we are not talking about objective reality, you concede that the OP demonstrates nothing about reality. 




Boss said:


> The truths about reality in the physical material universe. Like the truth that humans have always been spiritual. The most successful method at ascertaining truths about spiritual reality are gained through human spirituality.



What other method would there be to reach the spiritual? Could you give an example? If not, you can not say it is the most successful method, since you don't have any other methods to compare it against. Just pointing out how flawed your general sense of logic is. 




Boss said:


> Humans are still very spiritually connected. Should we go through all the things science thought and was wrong about? Of course, if science had adopted your philosophy on evidence not being subjective, there is no telling what wrong-headed science we'd be worshiping today.



You have yet to prove that humans are at all spiritual connected.  





Boss said:


> Pay attention... I said the definition doesn't indicate evidence must be subjective or objective. This is because you stated "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and that is a false statement. I correctly stated that subjectivity and objectivity are rationales we apply based on our perceptions of the evidence. Evidence is not altruistic or unassailable, it can be disputed, and this is because evidence is subjective. From there, you have chosen to run away from your false claim and pretend we are talking about something else.



"Evidence not being subjective by definition", means that nowhere in the definition of "evidence" is subjectivity indicated. To reword this so you understand, "subjective" is not part of the definition of evidence. You find a definition of evidence that indicates "subjectivity" and I'll concede that point. Until then, stfu. 

Objectivity is not based on our perceptions. It is the opposite. Our perceptions are based on objective reality. Without an objective reality, there would be nothing to perceive, and we would not exist. Saying evidence is subjective is idiotic. A fossil, which is evidence for evolution, is not subjective. It is exists objectively, just like a rock, or a car, or a tree, or the sun. If you assert otherwise, then you admit that you don't believe in objective reality, and that reality itself is simply a figment of your imagination (solipsism). I doubt you want to go there, because then you are forced to concede your position, since god would simply be a construct of your mind and doesn't actually exist, and we are all just figments of your imagination.

What you are trying to address, and failing, is whether one considers something evidence at all, and this is related to epistemology, or how we know what we know. 





Boss said:


> I'm perfectly sorted and not the least bit confused. You are the one who claimed evidence, by definition, is not subjective. I merely challenged your idiocy. Now you are trying to walk that back, change the subject and pretend you were talking about something else, and hurling insults at me as fast as you can. It's amusing and funny to watch you spin, not frustrating to me in the least.



You are very confused, and have demonstrated this with the myriad contradictions you have presented throughout this thread. You are not challenging anything about my position. 





Boss said:


> Evidential standards which apply to physical evidence in courts, are not applicable to spiritual entities, it is illogical to insist they be applied. As I said, if we were trying to prove physical existence of god in a court, there is no evidence to support this. I've never argued otherwise, but god is a spiritual entity, which doesn't provide physical evidence. If your mind can accept spiritual evidence, the spiritual evidence is overwhelming, and this is why billions of people over thousands of years, have practiced spirituality, and continue to do so.



You haven't provided a shred of "spiritual evidence." 





Boss said:


> But I thought, by definition, all evidence was not subjective? Now you are saying something different. Epistemology is simply the theory of knowledge. It can just as easily be rationally applied to examination of spiritual nature and spiritual evidence, you just don't believe in spiritual nature or spiritual evidence.



I never said, all evidence was not subjective. I said it was not contained in the definition. Let me try this again, since you don't seem to get what I was saying: Subjectivity is not a concept that is contained in the definition of evidence. Therefore, evidence can be either subjective or objective, since it is not specified. You admitted this, then continue on to say that all evidence is subjective. Again, contradicting yourself! You are a contradiction machine!

It appears you just looked up epistemology. That much is obvious. Of course epistemology is applied to spiritual beliefs.  Theist fundamentalists, such as yourself, have a differing epistemology, which is to say, the method by which they consider knowledge to be knowledge. Theirs is based on faith, not evidence. Faith, is grounded on intuition, which is categorically unreliable at getting at objective truth. Just look at how successfully scientific epistemologies have been relative to spiritual ones. It is staggering. Epistemology doesn't say anything about the truth value of supernatural propositions such as yours, and doesn't attempt to, but it does objectively comment on the rationale behind considerations of knowledge, and when faith-based epistemologies are compared to evidence-based ones, it is clear who wins out. Just look at the world around you. Were airplanes built by appealing to the supernatural or on faith? Nope. 



Boss said:


> You also don't have empirical evidence that god doesn't exist or that human spiritual belief is a fallacy or delusion. Billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years, confirm an intrinsic human connection to spiritual nature. The evidence of this is indeed, empirical. There is no physical evidence of material existence of a spiritual entity, and if there ever is such a discovery, the spiritual becomes physical. You are demanding illogical evidence. It's not any different than me demanding that you have God confirm your scientific theories for me, before I will accept them as valid.



This is a classic attempt to switch the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you, who claimed that a god AND a spiritual realm exists.




Boss said:


> Again, you are completely wrong. Proof is even more subjective than evidence. Science does not deal in "certainty." Nothing in science claims to be certain and absolute, it is all predicated on probability and prediction. Something with very high predictable probability, can be subjectively evaluated as "certain" by man, but that is reasoning and perception.



You clearly don't know what proof is, what it means, or where it is applied. I'm not going to educate you, since you appear to want to remain delusional. 



Boss said:


> Spiritual evidence, for those who accept it, is certainly not anecdotal. The fact that you reject spiritual nature, makes it anecdotal to you, from your perception. I have not argued otherwise. You continue to try and apply illogical criteria to spirituality and spiritual existence, and since spiritual existence means something completely different than physical existence, you can't relate.



YOU ARE SUCH A MORON. If spiritual evidence isn't anecdotal, then you are saying it is empirical? Where is it? If I can see it, touch it, smell, or taste it, why haven't I? Evidence being empirical, means it exists objectively, because empirical evidence is defined as that which you can sense through the five senses. This means you are sensing something in... objective reality. You admitted yourself that god does not exist in physical reality, yet we are only capable of interacting with physical reality. You argument of citing human belief for 70,000 years, means nothing, unless you can prove a sense by which humans could interact with the spiritual. This would be called a "sensus divinitatis," without which, your citation of human belief amounts to an argument from popularity.



> Sensus divinitatis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity"), also referred to as sensus deitatis ("sense of deity") or semen religionis ("seed of religion"), is a term first used by John Calvin to describe a hypothetical human sense. Instead of knowledge of the environment (as with, for example, smell or sight), the sensus divinitatis is alleged to give humans a knowledge of God.[1]
> 
> ...


 
You need to prove a Sensus Divinitatis, otherwise,  you admit that humans have no way of knowing about the spiritual realm. 




Boss said:


> 70,000+ years... billions and billions of human testimonials.



Argument from Popularity. FAIL.





Boss said:


> Now you are back to admitting that evidence is subjective. A fossil materially exists in a physical state that can be confirmed by physical science. I've not contradicted this. Whether I subjectively think fossils prove evolution, is a determination made on my perception of the evidence. However, evolution neither disproves god or spiritual nature.



Did I ever say that evolution disproves god or spiritual nature? No, I didn't. However, I'm glad we can agree that a fossil exists objectively. I would also agree that ones perception of the evidence or whether something can be called evidence, is subjective. This is basic epistemology. However, this does not mean that the evidence itself is subjective, unless it is anecdotal evidence, in which case, the evidence is entirely subjective. Empirical evidence is not subjective. It can be pointed to, smelt, heard, touched, or tasted, and therefore does not merely exist in the mind. Therefore, empirical evidence exists objectively. Anecdotal evidence exists subjectively. Your evidence is entirely anecdotal and subjective, since it can't be sense with any of our five human senses.



Boss said:


> > Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible within certain scientific disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, but are okay with inference within other disciplines, which itself is special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what theists deny, I am not a theist. I've not denied evolution, although, I have pointed out there is no evidence of cross-genus speciation. There is also no special pleading, those who don't accept spiritual nature can never accept spiritual evidence. It is a "special pleading" to demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical nature.



You are not an atheist, and you have no idea what special pleading means. So please, stop trying to simply copy me by using a term you don't understand in whichever way you think sounds good to you. It isn't special pleading to demand physical evidence for a spiritual thing, so get your fucking concepts straight. Special pleading means to lay an exemption for something, or to imply a double-standard. I am not implying a double-standard. In fact, you are. You are saying there is a different standard of evidence that applies to the spiritual.





Boss said:


> > The  hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.



Again, it is not my burden to prove that the spiritual nature doesn't exist. It is your burden to prove that it does. Therefore, I don't need empirical evidence, which according is irrelevant in this case. Since this spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans in any way, you have yet to answer how humans KNOW there is a spiritual realm. Belief is not evidence, and belief is not knowledge, yet you are claiming knowledge about the spiritual in making this claim. I can't wait to hear more of your vapid bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


so your ignorance extends to what you believe too!


The traditional view of God that has been held by Christians for the last 2,000 years is that he exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit* - not that there are three separate Gods, nor that he is one God wearing three different hats (traditionally called Modalism) - but that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons. This view has its roots in the Bible and was spelled out in credal form by the church of the fourth century. CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINED: Understanding the Trinity

now slapdick how is that any different the what I said: "the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals.."....it's not..

if you're attempt to talk shit at least be accurate.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > posts# 2690-2694 are the most blatant case of sphincter sucking I've seen in years !
> ...


so now stating fact is a perversion. 
you're kissing boss's ass  as any good sycophant should .


 SYCOPHANT


: a servile self-seeking flatterer 

&#8212;Synonyms apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunky), lickspittle, suck-up, toady


Related Words yes-man; apparatchik, company man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, lapdog, minion, running dog, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler, idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, camp follower, convert, disciple, follower, me-tooer,


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


bullshit! hollies' handed you your ass on that little gem too many times to remember.
masochist much.?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I don't believe in the trinity knock yourself out but it was wise to post something but let me straighten you out on one thing though.

Three representations of one God. Remember Christians and Jews are monotheistic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You are a pervert your posts show that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum 

You have always been a joke.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


since you don't believe in the trinity then beside spitting on 2,000 years of Christian wisdom, your answer is irrelevant and anti Christian.
good job of fucking yourself slapdick..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong again it describes you perfectly.
it also has the added benefit of pointing out your sad sexual repression..
your an ass kisser ..own it!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is this false accusation day or what?
unlike yourself I don't have to curry friendship. 
so again you're making shit up to make believe you won some credibility.
 me a joke? that statement just bleeds irony..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Someone is getting Angry. Daws not all Christians believe in the trinity doctrine. By your reasoning everyone should be a Catholic.

Hmm, what ignorance you display.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



My Daddy can beat your Daddy up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Have a good evening daws !


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


lol! like all your other observations /statements it's wrong ..you're far too much of an ass kisser to make me angry.
also  all Christians line is meaningless an over whelming majority do believe in the trinity..


----------



## Hollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and  manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya. 

You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.

They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.



Its no trick dumbass.

I would explain it but you lack the intelligence and motivation to bother understanding anything told you.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Objective reality and "truth" are two different things. Objective reality deals with physical reality which we can be objective about. It has nothing at all to do with spiritual truth. We've already determined that God doesn't physically exist. Therefore, objective physical reality means very little to the question of god's existence. That said, we can objectively reason, if an animal has always exhibited a particular behavior, it's not merely a figment of imagination or delusion, there is a fundamental reason for the behavior, vital to the species.



> If we are not talking about objective reality, then your argument is useless.  Since you just admitted we are not talking about objective reality, you concede that the OP demonstrates nothing about reality.



Nothing about PHYSICAL reality, and that was pointed out in the OP. You don't comprehend anything other than physical reality, physical existence, material evidence. The very idea of spiritual nature is contradictory to what you believe in, and you have no way to rationalize what "spiritual existence" even means. 



> What other method would there be to reach the spiritual? Could you give an example? If not, you can not say it is the most successful method, since you don't have any other methods to compare it against. Just pointing out how flawed your general sense of logic is.



Well I was being sarcastic in my response, but I would say that people CAN connect spiritually through appreciation of nature. 



> You have yet to prove that humans are at all spiritual connected.



Not all humans are, you most certainly are not. I don't believe this was a claim I have ever made. You DO have the ABILITY to spiritually connect, you just choose not to use it. 



> "Evidence not being subjective by definition", means that nowhere in the definition of "evidence" is subjectivity indicated. To reword this so you understand, "subjective" is not part of the definition of evidence. You find a definition of evidence that indicates "subjectivity" and I'll concede that point. Until then, stfu.



Look you dishonest little fuck... YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED "Evidence, *by definition*, is not subjective!" Now you are attempting to pretend that I said this? The POINT is conceded, you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about before, and now you've come to your senses. Glad I could school your ass on that. 



> Objectivity is not based on our perceptions. It is the opposite. Our perceptions are based on objective reality. Without an objective reality, there would be nothing to perceive, and we would not exist. Saying evidence is subjective is idiotic. A fossil, which is evidence for evolution, is not subjective. It is exists objectively, just like a rock, or a car, or a tree, or the sun. If you assert otherwise, then you admit that you don't believe in objective reality, and that reality itself is simply a figment of your imagination (solipsism). I doubt you want to go there, because then you are forced to concede your position, since god would simply be a construct of your mind and doesn't actually exist, and we are all just figments of your imagination.



ALL "evidence" is subjective, I am sorry if you don't get that. That a fossil exists, is not subjective, it either DOES or DOESN'T exist. Whether a fossil "PROVES" something, is indeed, SUBJECTIVE! Now you can dance around and pretend like I have taken your idiotic position, like you were doing before, and you can post loads of crap to support that fantasy, but that's not what my position was.... YOU said: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective," and I challenged you on that. You are STILL trying to claim, one minute, that it isn't subjective, but in the next paragraph, explaining how it IS subjective sometimes. You're full of shit, plain and simple. 



> What you are trying to address, and failing, is whether one considers something evidence at all, and this is related to epistemology, or how we know what we know.
> 
> You are very confused, and have demonstrated this with the myriad contradictions you have presented throughout this thread. You are not challenging anything about my position.



You are jumping around with your position, that's why! One minute, you tell us that evidence is not subjective, by definition... unless of course, it's "spiritual evidence" then it magically become subjective! Then you are dancing away from that claim, then back to it again, and claiming that I have taken your position and you've proven me wrong. You're fucking mental!



> You haven't provided a shred of "spiritual evidence."



But... Yes, I have.



> I never said, all evidence was not subjective. I said it was not contained in the definition. Let me try this again, since you don't seem to get what I was saying: Subjectivity is not a concept that is contained in the definition of evidence. Therefore, evidence can be either subjective or objective, since it is not specified. You admitted this, then continue on to say that all evidence is subjective. Again, contradicting yourself! You are a contradiction machine!



YOU SAID: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective." That is a direct quote from you, and I will go find the fucking post if you need me to, but that IS WHAT YOU SAID! 

"Subjective" means "subject to our interpretation and evaluation." ALL evidence fits this definition, because ALL evidence has to be weighed on it's own merit... it doesn't become a fact by you proclaiming it evidence. If what you said were true, no one could ever challenge any evidence, it would all be empirical and unchallengeable. All evidence can be subjectively evaluated and found to be "objective and reasonable" or not so much, it depends on the evidence and perception of the evidence in question. 

It does explain a lot about your mental rationality. If you presume that all evidence is unassailable fact that can't be challenged, no fucking telling what all you believe! There is evidence of UFOs and aliens... so I guess, since "evidence is, by definition, not subjective," that means everything claimed to be evidence of UFOs proves UFOs and aliens visit routinely? No need to question it, the evidence is not subjective, it can't be challenged subjectively.



> It appears you just looked up epistemology. That much is obvious. Of course epistemology is applied to spiritual beliefs.  Theist fundamentalists, such as yourself, have a differing epistemology, which is to say, the method by which they consider knowledge to be knowledge. Theirs is based on faith, not evidence.



WRONG. It is based on faith in spiritual evidence, which you reject. Again, I am not a theistic fundamentalist, we have covered this lie repeatedly, and you insist on continuing to assert it. Why is that? Is it because you feel more comfortable arguing this subject with a theist instead of an atheist? Or is it because an atheist is kicking your ass up one side of this board and down the other, making you say all kinds of stupid shit you have to run away from? 



> Faith, is grounded on intuition, which is categorically unreliable at getting at objective truth.



Spiritual faith is not based on intuition, it is based on understanding of a connection that is real, and has been made by humans for all their existence. You've not refuted this valid point, and you can't. 



> Just look at how successfully scientific epistemologies have been relative to spiritual ones. It is staggering. Epistemology doesn't say anything about the truth value of supernatural propositions such as yours, and doesn't attempt to, but it does objectively comment on the rationale behind considerations of knowledge, and when faith-based epistemologies are compared to evidence-based ones, it is clear who wins out. Just look at the world around you. Were airplanes built by appealing to the supernatural or on faith? Nope.



Airplanes were the product of inspiration, which comes from spiritual nature. Shall we run down the lengthy list of 'epistemologies' from science that have been absolutely wrong? This is precisely why the Scientific Method doesn't involve itself with drawing conclusions, and instead, continues to ask questions. Science predicts probability, and you have taken that fact and spun it into a belief system that can't be questioned. It's a vulgar perversion of science itself. 



> This is a classic attempt to switch the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you, who claimed that a god AND a spiritual realm exists.



NO... If you are going to state that spiritual nature does not exist, you have to prove that statement true. Those who accept spiritual nature, have no problem providing all the evidence they need to believe it is true. YOU are the one claiming, it is not true, and is a figment of our imagination, and so the burden of proof is on you, to prove your statement. Of course, you can't prove it, you will run from the challenge, claiming you can never prove a negative.... well then, shut the fuck up with the claims and admit that it's possible spiritual nature does exist, since you can't prove it doesn't. 



> You clearly don't know what proof is, what it means, or where it is applied. I'm not going to educate you, since you appear to want to remain delusional.



"Proof" is just like evidence, it is SUBJECTIVE, and depends on the individual's perception. If I see a ghost in my bedroom, that is PROOF to me that a ghost was present, it may NOT be PROOF to you. I'm sorry if your retard brain can't grasp that, but it's true. My OP "proves" god's existence, but you don't accept the evidence, therefore, you don't believe I have proven anything. Indeed, my OP presents both evidence and proof that is subjective, it is subject to personal evaluation based on whether or not you accept spiritual evidence. 



> YOU ARE SUCH A MORON. If spiritual evidence isn't anecdotal, then you are saying it is empirical? Where is it? If I can see it, touch it, smell, or taste it, why haven't I? Evidence being empirical, means it exists objectively, because empirical evidence is defined as that which you can sense through the five senses. This means you are sensing something in... objective reality. You admitted yourself that god does not exist in physical reality, yet we are only capable of interacting with physical reality. You argument of citing human belief for 70,000 years, means nothing, unless you can prove a sense by which humans could interact with the spiritual. This would be called a "sensus divinitatis," without which, your citation of human belief amounts to an argument from popularity.



Wow, you sure do devote an awful lot of your personal time, debating a "moron." What does that say about you? Here again, you are trying to establish that the ONLY type of "evidence" is physical in nature. I agree, physical evidence is physical in nature, but it has nothing to do with spiritual evidence, which is not physical in nature. Spiritual nature is also not objective physical reality, or it would be physical nature. It is every bit as spiritually "real" as physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists, because it doesn't conform to physical objectivity. 

We are NOT "only capable of interacting with physical reality," as you said. Humans are capable of interacting with spiritual nature, and have done so for all their existence, and this is the defining attribute of our species because of the wonders it has enabled in humanity itself. In fact, I will argue that humans DO have another sense, a spiritual sense, which other living things don't have, and which makes us unique among all living things. The fact that you dismiss 70k years of intrinsic defining behavior in a species of life, shows that you have completely abandoned science and everything Darwin theorized, as well as everything we know about nature. 



> You need to prove a Sensus Divinitatis, otherwise,  you admit that humans have no way of knowing about the spiritual realm.



Go read some Aristotle and Plato, since you seem to be waxing philosophical all the sudden. Both of these men, (who invented science, btw), were avid believers in a spiritual realm, something beyond the physical existence and presence we realize. Some of the stuff they theorized regarding that, has since been disproven, but the point is... these are among history's greatest minds. 

We DO know about the spiritual realm, we connect to it daily, most of us. We've been doing it since we 'discovered fire' and you can't dispute that evidence. People such as yourself, have been around just as long, claiming there is nothing to it, it's hocus pocus, it's imagination, it's delusional, it's all in our heads... but the attribute remains as strong in humans as ever.  



> Did I ever say that evolution disproves god or spiritual nature? No, I didn't. However, I'm glad we can agree that a fossil exists objectively. I would also agree that ones perception of the evidence or whether something can be called evidence, is subjective. This is basic epistemology. However, this does not mean that the evidence itself is subjective, unless it is anecdotal evidence, in which case, the evidence is entirely subjective. Empirical evidence is not subjective. It can be pointed to, smelt, heard, touched, or tasted, and therefore does not merely exist in the mind. Therefore, empirical evidence exists objectively. Anecdotal evidence exists subjectively. Your evidence is entirely anecdotal and subjective, since it can't be sense with any of our five human senses.



So now we are back to flip-flopping around on whether evidence is subjective? I'm really getting tired of hearing your spin... You were wrong when you stated that "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and I have proven you wrong sufficiently. All the little trick ponies in the world, are not going to spin you out of this one. My evidence is not "anecdotal" ...ask any of the billions of people who will testify to my evidence. All of us, believe our spiritual evidence is empirical, if we didn't believe that, we couldn't be spiritual people. Again, what we are running into, is what I defined in the OP as a failure on your part, to recognize spiritual nature. That is the problem, not the type of evidence. You want to hold court on the physical evidence for the physical existence of god, and it is a superfluous argument no one has ever made. You look like a clown. 



> You are not an atheist, and you have no idea what special pleading means. So please, stop trying to simply copy me by using a term you don't understand in whichever way you think sounds good to you. It isn't special pleading to demand physical evidence for a spiritual thing, so get your fucking concepts straight. Special pleading means to lay an exemption for something, or to imply a double-standard. I am not implying a double-standard. In fact, you are. You are saying there is a different standard of evidence that applies to the spiritual.



Special pleading is what you are doing. There is no physical standard for spiritual nature, and you are pleading for there to be one. You would indeed make a great lawyer arguing a court case over the physical evidence for the physical existence of god.... unfortunately, that is not the debate. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The  hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Again.... You can NOT make a definitive statement, without supporting that statement. I have provided my proof of spiritual existence, it's in the OP for all to read, and you have done nothing to refute anything I have said, only to reinforce several points I made. You continue to  completely misinterpret plain English that I type, like now you are claiming that I've said the spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans... where the fuck did you get that from? I never said it. The spiritual realm does indeed interact to those who believe in it and practice spiritual connection to it. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the 70k year history of it in mankind. 

Now, the spiritual realm doesn't interact with YOU, obviously. But this is probably due to the fact that you deny it exists and think it's all a bunch of nonsense that humans made up. However, there are literally more people than you would ever be able to count, who profess a deep and profound belief and understanding of a spiritual realm. 

If you are going to make the statement that Spiritual Nature is made up delusion and imagination, it is up to you to prove that. If you can't prove that, then you can't make that argument, no matter how you dress it up and pretend it has been made. You can't say that spiritual evidence is "anecdotal" because it doesn't conform to physical criteria, that is illogical, and you've not supported your argument with anything rational. Spiritual evidence is empirical to those who believe in spiritual nature. Evidence is subjective, isn't it?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 11, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure your answer is not a plethora of contradictions  ... "to connect to spiritual nature" - "because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs" - "I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god"  ---> ?
> ...






> *Boss:* Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms.
> 
> *Boss:* As I've explained, the god I believe spiritually exists, is non theistic and doesn't conform to religious incarnations. It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity or force, which humans have always had the ability to connect with.




*It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity ...*


why would you propose there is "an enormous and powerful spiritual entity" that exists for the exclusivity of mankind alone ? ... your argument that mankind is the sole beneficiary / disciple of this entity makes no sense at all or, as well that all else in the Universe is not cognoscente of its existence.  - baffling to say the least ...

you state for 70,000 years mankind alone has pursued an attempt to contact the god you believe exists - but as an atheist you see no point in this behavior - so why would it be used by you as a form of proof of the entities existence ?

ok again, if for 70,000k years an attempt has been made to make contact - and has "failed" (lacking definitive proof - Hollies point) could the reason be, an impurity of Heart, as the reason ? ---> just asking - - that all other life forms do posses.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 11, 2013)

One can be considered an atheist by rejecting culturally accepted concepts of God and still accept the idea of a more impersonal Creator like many of the Deists did way back.


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



I did not argue that spiritual nature is "exclusive to man," it is responsible for all life. I did not argue that man is the sole beneficiary. Until I start seeing chimps congregating for Sunday School class, I won't believe that other animals have the ability to spiritually connect to something they are spiritually aware of. Now... that's not to say this is impossible. I'm sorry if you EVER interpret anything I say as being an impossibility. I am very clearly an advocate of "nothing is impossible," and there should never be any confusion. I don't see evidence of other animals spiritually worshiping something greater than self. It is entirely possible that all of nature's life, does communicate and interact with spiritual nature, it would make logical sense for this, since spiritual nature created the universe. 

I reject the argument that people have failed to spiritually connect. A pure heart is not required. Belief in spiritual nature is required. I try and respect other people's spiritual dogma as much as possible, but I am not here to argue theological concepts. The question all boils down to whether you believe spiritual nature exists. For those who don't believe it does, no amount of proof will ever be enough, and for those who do, the proof is overwhelming and undeniable. There will always be those who do and those who don't, because there always has been, it's also human nature.


----------



## Bezukhov (Jun 12, 2013)

I may have to re-think my Atheistic outlook. There may very well be a merciful and loving God out there. I read this today:

Glenn Beck's Vocal Cords Temporarily Paralyzed; Delivers Tearful Monologue Through Cue Cards (VIDEO)


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore,  any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.

That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Objectivity has nothing to do with physical reality, by logical necessity. God would exist objectively, yet not in the physical, refuting your point entirely. Objective simply means "mind-independant,"  or not dependent upon the perception of anyone, anywhere for it to be the case.  If god doesn't exist objectively, again, you will have conceded your entire argument, since god would only exist in your head, and have no relevance to anyone else's life. Unless, you are claiming that you are god??? Therefore, objectivity and truth are not two different things, because truth is something that exists whether we want it to or not. To say it another way, truth is mind-independan, or, objective. Same thing. If truth is different from person to person, then it isn't truth, it is belief. Belief IS subjective and says nothing about truth or objective reality. "Spiritual truth" is just another name for belief. You are begging the question again in using the term "spiritual truth" since what you are trying to prove is the spiritual, and have not been able to. Therefore, you can not call something a spiritual truth until you demonstrate the spiritual exists, OBJECTIVELY. Only then would a belief in the spiritual be considered a truth or knowledge. An animal exhibiting behavior conducive to its survival means that the animal is objectively more fit as compared to an animal who does not exhibit such a behavior. I don't even understand what that has to do with this discussion anyway. It's a total red herring. Again, your absolute bastardization of these basic concepts of objective/subjective, is staggering and quite telling.





Boss said:


> Nothing about PHYSICAL reality, and that was pointed out in the OP. You don't comprehend anything other than physical reality, physical existence, material evidence. The very idea of spiritual nature is contradictory to what you believe in, and you have no way to rationalize what "spiritual existence" even means.



Neither do you understand anything other than physical reality, unless you are claiming that you are have a pathway to the spiritual. A belief is not a pathway. You would need a sixth sense that is able to interact with the spiritual, or a "Sensus Divinitatis." You have yet to provide evidence that humans have this sense, therefore, all they have is belief, which is not evidence of anything. Don't tell me what I believe or don't believe. The very idea of spiritual nature is not contradictory to what I believe in at all. It would be supplemental to a physical universe. There is no evidence for such an existence, and your belief, nor that of billions of others, will never logically amount to ANY evidence at all. This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from popularity. You have failed to refute this or address this at all. You simply gloss it over, and re-assert the veracity of your OP, like a child plugging his ears, stamping his feet, and screaming "NO!"





Boss said:


> Well I was being sarcastic in my response, but I would say that people CAN connect spiritually through appreciation of nature.



How? Are you positing a divine sense? You need to show that this sense exists on the human body, or in the human brain. There is no scientific evidence for such a sense. Until you do, all you have is a belief, like any other, which is not evidence. If belief was evidence, then if I believed I could fly, that would be evidence I could fly? No. Yet, for some reason, you think that more people believing something makes it true. If this were so, what is the number of people you need until something is true? There must be a cut-off, and yet you haven't explained this. Is it ten billion, 20 billion? How many? Your logic is quite terrible, and you don't realize it. 





Boss said:


> Not all humans are, you most certainly are not. I don't believe this was a claim I have ever made. You DO have the ABILITY to spiritually connect, you just choose not to use it.



Again you are positing that I have a divine sense, but you haven't' demonstrated this sense to exist. 




Boss said:


> Look you dishonest little fuck... YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED "Evidence, *by definition*, is not subjective!" Now you are attempting to pretend that I said this? The POINT is conceded, you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about before, and now you've come to your senses. Glad I could school your ass on that.



Its okay boo-boo. Your idiocy is really easy to exploit. Your reading comprehension is very poor. I'm not going to repeat myself. I consider the point conceded and expect you not to rehash this, since you keep on losing every point you try to advance. 





Boss said:


> ALL "evidence" is subjective, I am sorry if you don't get that. That a fossil exists, is not subjective, it either DOES or DOESN'T exist. Whether a fossil "PROVES" something, is indeed, SUBJECTIVE! Now you can dance around and pretend like I have taken your idiotic position, like you were doing before, and you can post loads of crap to support that fantasy, but that's not what my position was.... YOU said: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective," and I challenged you on that. You are STILL trying to claim, one minute, that it isn't subjective, but in the next paragraph, explaining how it IS subjective sometimes. You're full of shit, plain and simple.



I have proven that evidence is not necessarily subjective, yet you continue with the same old tired line. I hear this all the time from theists. If evidence is necessarily subjective, then you have no claim to your own "spiritual evidence" pointing to anything objectively existing. If you admit that it doesn't exist objectively, then it only exists in your mind, which means it doesn't actually exist. You have backed yourself into a logical corner from which you can not now escape. I expect you to concede your points, logically, but as you are entirely illogical, I know that you will not. A discussion  about evidence is one of epistemology, not the subject/object problem. 





Boss said:


> You are jumping around with your position, that's why! One minute, you tell us that evidence is not subjective, by definition... unless of course, it's "spiritual evidence" then it magically become subjective! Then you are dancing away from that claim, then back to it again, and claiming that I have taken your position and you've proven me wrong. You're fucking mental!



I knew you were going to take a 2nd grader's stance on this. I shouldn't have expected someone of your mental incapacity to be able to understand reality on reality's terms. I NEVER SAID EVIDENCE CAN'T BE SUBJECTIVE. I said it is not necessarily subjective, because it is not in the definition.  Stop stretching my words! I explained this to you clearly in my last post, yet you continuously and dishonestly assert that I am saying something I did not, because at this point, its all you think you have on me. I advise you to let go of it, as you are wrong her as well. Admittedly, i put it a little vaguely at first. I should have said, "Evidence is not necessarily subjective, by definition," which is what I meant. Regardless, I explained my position clearly, and twice in the last post, and yet you hold me to a position I do not myself hold. This is a straw-man. You misunderstood my position to begin with, and upon clarification, refuse to accept said clarification for purposes of rhetoric and mockery. You really are a little child. 





Boss said:


> But... Yes, I have.



You haven't done anything of note in this entire thread. You haven't convinced anyone of your proposition, and only preach to the choir which consist of the fools who already believe your conclusion. Your reasoning is invalid and unsound, and does not follow from your ridiculous premises. 





Boss said:


> YOU SAID: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective." That is a direct quote from you, and I will go find the fucking post if you need me to, but that IS WHAT YOU SAID!



Find me where a definition of "evidence" that explicitly indicates the quality of it being "subjective." When you can't, you will understand what I meant, which is a true statement. I will try for a third time, because dealing with someone so mentally inept is kind of fun, but only because your pride is astounding and you deserve a hard fall: Nowhere in the definition of evidence, is the concept of subjectivity found. Therefore, by definition, evidence is not subjective. I admit to putting it vaguely, but this was merely a reaction to your having said that by definition, evidence WAS subjective, when it isn't. It is nowhere indicated in the definition. You don't reach the ideas of subjectivity or objectivity until you get to the different kinds of evidence. If we are talking about anecdotal evidence, then it is 100% subjective. If we are talking about empirical evidence, then it is not, and points to something that exists objectively. Get it? If we have to go over this again, because you decided to say that evidence is necessarily subjective, while at the same time saying evidence can be either subjective or objective (I can go find it), then you are a fucking asshat. 



Boss said:


> "Subjective" means "subject to our interpretation and evaluation." ALL evidence fits this definition, because ALL evidence has to be weighed on it's own merit... it doesn't become a fact by you proclaiming it evidence. If what you said were true, no one could ever challenge any evidence, it would all be empirical and unchallengeable. All evidence can be subjectively evaluated and found to be "objective and reasonable" or not so much, it depends on the evidence and perception of the evidence in question.



Subjective means mind-dependant, and by logical consequence, it is subject to our interpretation and evaluation. However, this doesn't mean that evidence is subjective. This would mean evidence only exists in the mind, but this is not true. This would only be anecdotal evidence. However, whether one considers something to be evidence, IS subjective, but this says nothing about the existential condition of empirical or anecdotal evidence. Empirical evidence is available to the senses, anecdotal evidence is not. The dispute over what to call evidence is epistemology. Something that is reliably demonstrated to be  evidence of something else, must be empirical, otherwise it is simply heresay, which is all you have. I can't believe how many times you need to be explained things! It's crazy.



Boss said:


> It does explain a lot about your mental rationality. If you presume that all evidence is unassailable fact that can't be challenged, no fucking telling what all you believe! There is evidence of UFOs and aliens... so I guess, since "evidence is, by definition, not subjective," that means everything claimed to be evidence of UFOs proves UFOs and aliens visit routinely? No need to question it, the evidence is not subjective, it can't be challenged subjectively.



You are twisting my words all around. I never said evidence is an unassailable fact. Evidence is used to determine what is true about objective reality, as best as possible. Our reasoning about what is and is not evidence and what we can call evidence, IS SUBJECTIVE. This relates to an individual's epistemology. However, the evidence itself, can not be called subjective, especially if it is claimed to be demonstrable of something objective. Given your premises, the very least you would need to prove, is that humans have a sixth sense which allows them to interact with the divine or spiritual and give them knowledge of the divine/spiritual realm. This divine sense is something that would exist in physical reality, within the human body somewhere, and could be studied empirically. Can you cite one scientific, peer-reviwed paper that confirms the existence of this sixth divine sense? No, because it doesn't exist. Therefore, you can't logically prove that any human, ever, was actually interacting with anything outside of its own mind. 





Boss said:


> WRONG. It is based on faith in spiritual evidence, which you reject. Again, I am not a theistic fundamentalist, we have covered this lie repeatedly, and you insist on continuing to assert it. Why is that? Is it because you feel more comfortable arguing this subject with a theist instead of an atheist? Or is it because an atheist is kicking your ass up one side of this board and down the other, making you say all kinds of stupid shit you have to run away from?



"Faith" in spiritual evidence is a contradiction. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, therefore, if you are citing faith, you have no evidence, by definition. Get yourself some academic help. You are making a mess of this place. 

I see this mistake with theists all the time. They claim everything is a result of faith, simply because that is their epistemology and how they have garnered knowledge. In fact, it is not knowledge, simply their belief that they have knowledge. How hilarious that you would try to consider yourself an atheist, yet talk of faith epistemologies while making a "definitive" argument for god. Let me get this straight: you're an atheist, yet have bound yourself with some responsibility to prove god and argue it with your "fellow atheists"? I find this hard to believe. You are either seriously confused, have some mental issues, or are just a poe. 





Boss said:


> Spiritual faith is not based on intuition, it is based on understanding of a connection that is real, and has been made by humans for all their existence. You've not refuted this valid point, and you can't.



You have to provide sound reasoning and evidence of your point. My refutation consists of pointing out this obvious fact, which I've done, and you have failed to respond to. You continue to re-assert your points, as if you haven't before, and yet somehow, on this time around, it is going to make a difference. This is the sign of someone inflexible and un-dynamic. In others, dumb. 

Insults aside, which you actually deserve after all of this, you have not proved that the connection is real. This is the nexus of the whole argument. Again, you would need humans to have a "sense" of the divine somewhere on our physical body. If it doesn't exist, then you can't claim the connection is real. It really is that simple. Prove a divine sense. Even then, you haven't proven the spiritual realm exists, logically, but it would be a start. So far, you haven't even gotten off ground with your grandiose assumptions. 





Boss said:


> Airplanes were the product of inspiration, which comes from spiritual nature. Shall we run down the lengthy list of 'epistemologies' from science that have been absolutely wrong? This is precisely why the Scientific Method doesn't involve itself with drawing conclusions, and instead, continues to ask questions. Science predicts probability, and you have taken that fact and spun it into a belief system that can't be questioned. It's a vulgar perversion of science itself.



Another assertion without evidence of any kind. Prove that inspiration comes from spiritual nature. Until then, don't make such asinine claims. Inspiration is a product of motivation, which is perfectly explainable in a naturalistic, atheistic universe, as it would be something necessitated by evolution for us to do anything successful. It is so intrinsic to our survival, that to attribute to the spiritual is a laughable claim at this point. You just want to hog anything good for the "spiritual" without any evidence whatsoever.

What is this lengthy list of "scientific epistemologies" of which you speak that have been wrong? Can you name one? Science being wrong is celebrated in scientific epistemology. The fact that you are on your computer is a because scientific epistemologies, which never grants certainty, and accepts and enjoys being wrong, because that means further investigation is required. Point in case, The Higgs Boson. Most of the researchers were hoping it wouldn't be found, because that would mean a fundamental flaw in the Standard Model, and would lead to fundamentally new understanding of the universe, which would mean greater discovery than that of the Higgs itself. Science is honest. Theistic epistemology is not. 





Boss said:


> NO... If you are going to state that spiritual nature does not exist, you have to prove that statement true. Those who accept spiritual nature, have no problem providing all the evidence they need to believe it is true. YOU are the one claiming, it is not true, and is a figment of our imagination, and so the burden of proof is on you, to prove your statement. Of course, you can't prove it, you will run from the challenge, claiming you can never prove a negative.... well then, shut the fuck up with the claims and admit that it's possible spiritual nature does exist, since you can't prove it doesn't.



If there is so much spiritual evidence, PROVIDE SOME. So far, you have provided none, and simply expect us to take your claims on faith. That is not going to happen. Trying to prove the spiritual with the spiritual, is begging the question. What THIS MEANS, since you don't seem to want to use a quick google search, is that your conclusion is contained in your premise, thus making the argument invalid structurally. Again, you fail to reach your conclusion. So far, we have the following logical fallacies with your argument: begging the question (circular reasoning), a causal fallacy (com hoc ergo propter hoc or "causation implies causation"), argument from popularity, proof by assertion, and ad hominem's (saying it is my fault that I don't see your evidence). That's five. I'm sure there are more, but this just off the top of my little head. 





Boss said:


> "Proof" is just like evidence, it is SUBJECTIVE, and depends on the individual's perception. If I see a ghost in my bedroom, that is PROOF to me that a ghost was present, it may NOT be PROOF to you. I'm sorry if your retard brain can't grasp that, but it's true. My OP "proves" god's existence, but you don't accept the evidence, therefore, you don't believe I have proven anything. Indeed, my OP presents both evidence and proof that is subjective, it is subject to personal evaluation based on whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.



Definition of proof



> n.
> 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
> 2.
> a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
> ...



If you can find "subjective" anywhere in this definition, please point it out to me, because I can't find it. You mean be able to get away with saying that everything is subjective, at best, in some philosophical sense. However, and again, if you deny the fact of objective reality existing at all, then you concede your argument, and admit that you don't believe any reality exists outside of your own mind. This is known as solipsism. Take youre pick. Both have their consequences, neither of which look good for you. Find us a proof that merely demonstrates something subjective. Actually, an attempt was made with the a priori proof known as the Ontological Argument for the Existence of god. However, this still concluded with god existing objectively, in the actual universe. It simply makes deductions from a priori premises, which is why it fails. 




Boss said:


> Wow, you sure do devote an awful lot of your personal time, debating a "moron." What does that say about you? Here again, you are trying to establish that the ONLY type of "evidence" is physical in nature. I agree, physical evidence is physical in nature, but it has nothing to do with spiritual evidence, which is not physical in nature. Spiritual nature is also not objective physical reality, or it would be physical nature. It is every bit as spiritually "real" as physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists, because it doesn't conform to physical objectivity.



Considering how many times you've called me an idiot, you also devote an awful lot of your personal time to debating an idiot, or an asshole, or whatever else you've called me. Odd that you would attempt to mock me for something you yourself are simultaneously doing! You really are A MORON! Why I would debate a moron? Obviously, because it makes me feel smart! It feeds my ego. Duh!!!

I never said anything about evidence only being physical. You are putting words in my mouth. At best, I am saying we live in a physical universe, therefore the only EMPIRICAL evidence we have ever found is physical. If you don't have empirical evidence, then you don't have an argument. That doesn't mean it has to be physical, as this is based on induction is isn't necessarily the case, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find non-physical empirical evidence. If you did, you've have won the nobel and wouldn't be on a fucking online debate forum debating atheists anonymously.  Also, I never equated objective reality to the physical. You did, and incorrectly. Nor did I ever say that evidence is defined by it being physical. I simply asked for any evidence at all, and you fail to provide any. 



Boss said:


> We are NOT "only capable of interacting with physical reality," as you said. Humans are capable of interacting with spiritual nature, and have done so for all their existence, and this is the defining attribute of our species because of the wonders it has enabled in humanity itself. In fact, I will argue that humans DO have another sense, a spiritual sense, which other living things don't have, and which makes us unique among all living things. The fact that you dismiss 70k years of intrinsic defining behavior in a species of life, shows that you have completely abandoned science and everything Darwin theorized, as well as everything we know about nature.



Another proof by assertion. Evidence please! "The wonders it has enabled in humanity"? Oh, you mean like the myriad wars in the name of religious belief? You would dare call that a wonder? The only "wonders" have been a result of scientific knowledge and inquiry. Everything to do with spirituality has been self-serving, narcissistic, and mostly evil with advancing humanity in any meaningful way. 





Boss said:


> Go read some Aristotle and Plato, since you seem to be waxing philosophical all the sudden. Both of these men, (who invented science, btw), were avid believers in a spiritual realm, something beyond the physical existence and presence we realize. Some of the stuff they theorized regarding that, has since been disproven, but the point is... these are among history's greatest minds.



Aristotle invented the idea of natural inquiry, but it wasn't science as we would call it, it was "natural philosophy," or an attempt to explain the world WITHOUT supernatural elements. It wasn't modern science and Aristotle was wrong about everything he thought, such as the motion of objects. Plato had nothing to do with science. The modern scientific method was developed until the 11th century by a Muslim. The fact that they believed in a spiritual realm, again, is not evidence of a spiritual realm. When  you stop making this logical leap, you will understand why your OP is complete and utter horse shit topped with shit sprinkles.    



Boss said:


> We DO know about the spiritual realm, we connect to it daily, most of us. We've been doing it since we 'discovered fire' and you can't dispute that evidence. People such as yourself, have been around just as long, claiming there is nothing to it, it's hocus pocus, it's imagination, it's delusional, it's all in our heads... but the attribute remains as strong in humans as ever.



You have yet to prove that we connect to a spiritual realm daily, and that it is any more than a belief, just like any other. This is a huge claim, and you're only evidence is human belief itself. Were you to present this to a philosophy or a science or a religious teacher (who was honest), they would laugh in your face. 




Boss said:


> So now we are back to flip-flopping around on whether evidence is subjective? I'm really getting tired of hearing your spin... You were wrong when you stated that "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and I have proven you wrong sufficiently. All the little trick ponies in the world, are not going to spin you out of this one. My evidence is not "anecdotal" ...ask any of the billions of people who will testify to my evidence. All of us, believe our spiritual evidence is empirical, if we didn't believe that, we couldn't be spiritual people. Again, what we are running into, is what I defined in the OP as a failure on your part, to recognize spiritual nature. That is the problem, not the type of evidence. You want to hold court on the physical evidence for the physical existence of god, and it is a superfluous argument no one has ever made. You look like a clown.



The only clown here, is you, "Big Shoes." Hold on. You just said, "My evidence is not anecdotal... ask any of the billions of people who will testify to my evidence." 

This is a self-refuting statement. In asking billions of people, that would make it anecdotal evidence, necessarily. 

I really want to laugh in your face, in text, right now. Or, as you put, "chortle." Suffice it to say, I am laughing at you for what you just wrote.   





Boss said:


> Special pleading is what you are doing. There is no physical standard for spiritual nature, and you are pleading for there to be one. You would indeed make a great lawyer arguing a court case over the physical evidence for the physical existence of god.... unfortunately, that is not the debate.



You don't know what special pleading is, so just stop pretending to. It is obvious you have no idea what you are doing with this concept.



Boss said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.
> > ...





Boss said:


> Again.... You can NOT make a definitive statement, without supporting that statement. I have provided my proof of spiritual existence, it's in the OP for all to read, and you have done nothing to refute anything I have said, only to reinforce several points I made. You continue to  completely misinterpret plain English that I type, like now you are claiming that I've said the spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans... where the fuck did you get that from? I never said it. The spiritual realm does indeed interact to those who believe in it and practice spiritual connection to it. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the 70k year history of it in mankind.



Yes, I can make a definitive statement. Where are you getting these rules from, which you don't apply to yourself? If the spiritual realm interacts with the physical, then WE WOULD EXPECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. This is basic logic. Explain how an  interaction with another system wouldn't leave a trace? Please. Until you do, you're blatant contradiction doesn't go away simply by ignoring. At the very least, you have to posit a divine sense with which humans can sense this interaction or perturbation among our physical realm, which you have failed to provide. Again, you keep on re-asserting your tired-ass claims and faulty logic. Philosophically, your "argument" is very, very poor, indeed. Hate to bust your ego, pal. 



Boss said:


> Now, the spiritual realm doesn't interact with YOU, obviously. But this is probably due to the fact that you deny it exists and think it's all a bunch of nonsense that humans made up. However, there are literally more people than you would ever be able to count, who profess a deep and profound belief and understanding of a spiritual realm.



The spiritual realm doesn't interact with you, either. This is simply your belief. You have yet to prove anything real about the spiritual to anyone but yourself.



Boss said:


> If you are going to make the statement that Spiritual Nature is made up delusion and imagination, it is up to you to prove that. If you can't prove that, then you can't make that argument, no matter how you dress it up and pretend it has been made. You can't say that spiritual evidence is "anecdotal" because it doesn't conform to physical criteria, that is illogical, and you've not supported your argument with anything rational. Spiritual evidence is empirical to those who believe in spiritual nature. Evidence is subjective, isn't it?



I can prove that the belief in the spiritual is a delusion, at least as far you have defined, or actually, not defined it. Since you make this so easy, it is easy to disprove. No evidence has ever been presented by you, and human beings are fallible creatures with built-in cognitive biases,  therefore the conclusion that the spiritual exists is not at all guaranteed. Have a nice day, idiot.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are.  Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's  because your agenda has blinded you.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

It doesn't follow logically that because X amount of people believe Y to be true, Y is therefore true.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's all a grand conspiracy! It must be the DEVIL! Nevermind that god would have endowed us with the capacity to reason and now he wants us to ignore that capacity! What a great and honest god to have done so!

YWC, you're position is a bunch of bollocks.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie there is good worthy science being practiced but there is also bad science being taught lead by Ideological leaders.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



A typical poor me response not willing to look at the facts. That is exactly why this nonsense continues being taught in schools.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes there are. An important strategy would be to configure a major coup whereby converting Harun Yahya to christianity would provide a powerful ally in the fight against atheistic evilutionist scientists. 

I would think that you would be an appropriate person to take the lead in that effort. Rank has its privileges and you could rise to General of The Crusaders, Conversion Brigade, Division of the Religiously Insane.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Np, when assumptions and explanations are wrong at the beginning the assumptions and explanations are gonna be wrong at the end.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're absolutely right. By this fact, your belief in the bible as a literal document is completely unsupported by anything exterior to the bible, making any arguments for literalism or young-earth creationism on which it is based, circular.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





I don't care who restores integrity in the various fields of science but it has to be done.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



The bible had nothing to do with what we were discussing you and hollie are bringing it up.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And Christian fundamentalists are just the folks to do that. 

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

The argument from popularity, on which the OP is entirely premised, is a logical fallacy. Again, simply because X amount of people believe Y to be true, does not make Y true, under any conditions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum



> In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so...
> 
> The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown,the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


It must be brought up. The bibles are the core of knowledge. What better source to refute atheistic evilutionist scientists than with the bibles?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No I am perfectly fine with both sides honestly working together for truth. The science community when they suspect a fraud they should make it known it is a fraud.

The Church will never ever be in control like it once was. It's funny you guys argue doctrine you say how superior the catholic church is and there was a reason why many Christians broke off from them. I don't mean to offend Catholics but they drove many believers away.

I have never been a fan of organized religion for many reasons. God apparently feels the same way because he never built a religion only man has.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Hollie I never said that now did I ?


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Then why are you bringing up assumptions with regards to me? I am merely responding to the OP, which is chalk full of assumptions. You have no idea what my assumptions are. You merely assume. 

The dishonesty with you is your inability to see your own bias here. You agree with the conclusion of the OP, that god exists, so simply assume that the argumentation and methods of inference are correct, when they are not. This assumption is a false one.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, yes, we can always rely on christian fundies to be honest and objective:


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." 

- Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.

He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.

You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Your posts are literally drenched in, and reek of biblical literalism. 

Tell us again your position on the biblical account of creation vs. an ancient universe and planet earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Presuppositions are a hard thing to fight off when you're looking at evidence. That is true and the same can be said for naturalism but it should be only the evidence to see which explanation best fits the evidence after all is that not what science is ?

That is why I pointed out what I did earlier the evidence your side creates does not fit the theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have told you many times before I have no clue how old the earth is  and it is futile do to so.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, I suppose we're back to you insisting that atheistic evilutionist scientists are either wrong, deluded or conspiring to further a conspiracy regarding the many fields of science that point to an ancient universe.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have written previously that you believe the planet is somewhere between 6k and 14k years old. 

Do you want syrup with that waffle?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I believe some are working towards their Ideological views and others are simply victims of their presuppositions. I would not say it is a conspiracy and I know why you and NP are trying to promote that appearance. If you want to continue this discussion focus on the evidence not personal attacks shall we ?


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie I have written that mostly because of the evidence that suggest a younger earth over the Ancient earth. I am a believer so the bible does provide a chronology from Adam on down to the present but it does not provide a definite time frame for the earth.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You routinely cut and paste from fundamentalist christian creationist websites. Those charlatans define their arguments with a predefined conclusion. 

We've repeatedly seen that the "quotes" you mine from these sites are falsified, altered, or blatantly fraudulent. It's comical that you would want to lecture anyone regarding facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So the answer is "yes". You do want syrup with your waffle.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Ok you let me know when you're ready for an adult discussion.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Provide the testable evidence for Adam and Eve, the magic garden and talking snakes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 Let me spell it out for you. I can identify the various christian fundie websites you have "quote-mined" from and I can also link to the "about" pages on these sites and Identify the announcements of their bias leading to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy. 

I got a chuckle when you wrote of an adult discussion.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Still wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Who was the first Homo sapien pair that produced modern day humans ? Talking serpent can only happen through one means and that can't be proven.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie I share some views with creationist what is your point ? You share views with atheists what is the point ?

So maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion on the evidence. You seem to have a real problem with a believer that can have a rational conversation with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



How is it wrong ?


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Oh, you poor dear. 

You share "some" views with Christian creationist?

Those are the only views you present. Typically, those views  are presented in the form of fraudulent "quotes", manufactured specifically to denigrate science. 

Creation ministries present no peer reviewed facts to support biblical tales of miracles and supernaturalism. Their arguments are attempts only to tear down science.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...





Would a contemporary illustration be acceptable?


Life is the magic garden, any religious deceiver is the serpent and Adam and Eve is anyone gullible enough to swallow the poison they preach or eat any of the fruit of their vile and contaminated mind who then loses their own sentient mind by allowing falsehood to enter their thought process and as a consequence thorns and thistles are the only fruit capable of being produced by the sweat of their brow, thinking, and they will live out the rest of their days in unenlightened ignorance, the dust of the earth...

How many conversations are do you have to have with a religious deceiver before you  recognize a direct descendant of the biblical serpent when you see one?

How many conversations do you have to have with someone who has been deceived by a serpent before you realize that there is no greater darkness than in the mind of someone whose only light in life is a lie?


The effects of allowing falsehood, the forbidden fruit, to enter the mind amounts to killing its ability to function rationally and is quite testable and such a state of death demonstrated daily by the deceived.


See what is there. I'm not making this stuff up. Reality is even stranger than the fairy tale.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


"So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils" -YWC 
THE ABOVE QUOTE IS FALSE.
 As the content of the quoted article is not factual or scientific it proves nothing as it is based on a religious belief not evidence.
  therefore YWC'S CLAIM "'kicking butt" is also false.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.
> ...


yes dear! 
why is it you believers assume that no one but you knows Christianity.
I was born and raised with the same myths you're spouting.
and yes it is a trick ,more accurately an illusion.
there is no objective evidence of god let alone  a multi personality one.
 understanding that, takes far more intelligence and motivation then believing ancient folk tales.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


guess you don't realize your attempt at being obtuse is a failure.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ok then test the bible and creation science with skepticism..
a basic tenant of science  is  being skeptical of you own evidence.  real science tests it's evidence constantly.
not one of you has ever tested your evidence with anything close to the objectivity and skepticism needed to prove your myths true.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


snicker! a viable explanation? the evidence is either viable or it's not...hahahaha!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge attempt warning...
once again you makes that totally specious assumption the one pair of homo sapiens  began the whole species...


----------



## flowery (Jun 12, 2013)

.

.​


http://im35.gulfup.com/7ZuYI.jpg



.

.​


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.

Not  a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No I said I believe in Micro-evolution who do you think I am agreeing with there ? Or that Rna can replicate itself ?

The current human mutation rate ?

I also believe and can detect purposeful design in nature now who would I be agreeing with there ?

Hollie once again you show your faleure to reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well hello dummy wondered when you would show up. Wrong because the pictures of the fossils and the dates assigned to the fossils came from evolutionist once again you show your stupidity.

http://www.living-fossils.com/2_1.php


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Still nothing worth responding to.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



I have, the bible has given me no reason to doubt the Things I can't prove contained in the scriptures. Because I can't prove them does not mean they didn't happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Yeah the evidence has to be interpreted and an explanation given that is part of the scientific method but of course I would have to explain that to you.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm clear that you have real difficulty with understanding what It is you're hoping to convey. Your nonsensical sputtering above Is nothing more than silliness refuted previously.   You're simply wasting your time with creationist dogma. 

This would be the appropriate time to offer - yet again - your really nonsensical claim to mechanical devices not assembling into an airliner, thus, proving "design" in nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Show otherwise, How did we get multiple pairs of homo sapiens to populate the earth ?

If this can happen How come living fossils show no change after many more years of existing over Homo Sapiens ? Having many more offspring and many more generations ?

It is really easy to kill the theory you hold dear clown.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your goofy conspiracy theories aren't going to be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are the perfect candidate for promoting creationist fear and superstition. Your typically dodge any requirement to support your argument, but instead, bluster on with
juvenile questions speak to an utter lack a science vocabulary.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...





 Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations have been observed however never macro-evolution. Evolutionist extrapolate from this evidence as evidence for macro-evolution. Every case where you present supposed evidence it's nothing more then micro-evolution.

Do you want macro defined for you ? an ape producing a non ape. A horse producing a non horse. A feline producing a non feline. A fly producing a non fly.

Small changes within a gene pool does not constitute macro-evolution that supposedly accounts for all species on this planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sorry you have a problem understanding simple english.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie how many times must I mention specific parts of the human anatomy plus parts of a cell that didn't happen by chance but by purposeful design.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Hollie you still have not addressed my earlier questions and since you can't you try to change the subject .a typical ploy of someone getting their ass kicked.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your silly conspiracy theories, posed as questions, have been addressed before. 

Do you believe your conspiracy theories are to be taken seriously?

So what about that talking snake in the magic garden?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you think this nonsense is not understood to be taken directly from Christian creation ministries? Both you and they grind out these profoundly stupid comments over and over.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is just an excuse for creationists to dismiss evolution. Science uses indirect evidence all the time. I don't hear you crying about that. Forensic science makes inferences about events in the past for which no one was there to reliably witness, yet you don't have a problem with it. In fact, forensic science closely mirrors historical sciences in this respect. No one was there to witness, for a example a murder/suicide, yet forensics can tell us what happened, and this is deemed acceptable in our court systems. I don't see you picketing our court system because "no one was there." Its such a bullshit argument, and constitutes special pleading.  Science is about building predictive models about reality, which are as accurate to reality as possible. Direct or indirect evidence is irrelevant, as long as it is empirical, and can be demonstrate repeatedly and conforms to predictive models.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke

Dissent From Darwin Blog


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You are making stuff up hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Dissent From Darwin Blog


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...




But there are no predictive models for macro-evolution that have worked.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You can cut and paste links to Christian creationist websites. How stereotypical... and pointless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



These scientists are more qualified to speak on the matters than you're. Tell me just what your education is ? You want to slander people that have worked long and hard in this field give me your credentials ? I have given you mine.

Let's see if you are just an ignorant atheistic Ideologue with very little education on these matters.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I notice how you never take on the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I notice how you never post evidence.

Your link to the Disco'tute was laughable. Do you recall how Ann Gauger was "green-screened" in front of a stock photo of a science lab? The frauds and charlatans attempted to represent that the Disco'tute did actual research. Of course, they don't. They spend time trying to fraudulently pass themselves off as something they are not.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Why Gaugers green-screened lab is an appropriate target of ridicule

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 23,2012 8:46 PM | 30 Comments

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of Science and Human Origins. They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gaugers blather about  a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution, argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). 
While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, its also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco Tute to erode public confidence in mainstream science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called academic freedom for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There's an obvious reason why your cutting and pasting is exclusively from fundie creationist websites. Why is that?

Do you really think the frauds and charlatans at the Disco'tute lend anything but ridicule to your conspiracy theories?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This is your source lol.

The Panda's Thumb: Richard B. Hoppe Archives

Richard B. Hoppe's education - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Objectivity is the act of being objective. Being objective can be associated with truth, but it's not truth. Objective reality is based on perception of the individual. You don't believe in spiritual existence, so it is not objective reality in your mind. God does exist objectively, but you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence and spiritual existence. 



> Neither do you understand anything other than physical reality, unless you are claiming that you are have a pathway to the spiritual.



DUH! What do you think the basis for my argument has been? 



> A belief is not a pathway. You would need a sixth sense that is able to interact with the spiritual, or a "Sensus Divinitatis." You have yet to provide evidence that humans have this sense, therefore, all they have is belief, which is not evidence of anything.



Not only have I proven they have it, I proved they've had it for as long as humans have existed. You have failed to offer any proof to the contrary. 



> Don't tell me what I believe or don't believe. The very idea of spiritual nature is not contradictory to what I believe in at all.



Wow... talk about covering your bases! Not many people reel off these mile-long threads regarding something they don't believe in, but actually DO believe in. Most people are non-retarded enough to just say... hey, what you're saying is possible.



> It would be supplemental to a physical universe. There is no evidence for such an existence, and your belief, nor that of billions of others, will never logically amount to ANY evidence at all. This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from popularity. You have failed to refute this or address this at all. You simply gloss it over, and re-assert the veracity of your OP, like a child plugging his ears, stamping his feet, and screaming "NO!"



There IS evidence, billions of people have given their testimonial. They even had to create a special word to describe the realization of benefits from this spiritual existence, called "blessings." There is no "PHYSICAL" evidence, unless you count physical nature itself, which spiritual nature created. The logical fallacy is assuming physical nature created itself.



> How? Are you positing a divine sense? You need to show that this sense exists on the human body, or in the human brain. There is no scientific evidence for such a sense.



Humans have the ability to connect spiritually to spiritual nature. If you want to evaluate that as an extra "sense," that's fine with me, it is indeed something humans can do, and have been doing all their existence. We have scientifically proven this is true. 



> Until you do, all you have is a belief, like any other, which is not evidence. If belief was evidence, then if I believed I could fly, that would be evidence I could fly? No. Yet, for some reason, you think that more people believing something makes it true. If this were so, what is the number of people you need until something is true? There must be a cut-off, and yet you haven't explained this. Is it ten billion, 20 billion? How many? Your logic is quite terrible, and you don't realize it.



The fact that 95% of all humans to ever exist, were able to spiritually connect or recognize spiritual connection, is pretty strong evidence. I don't know what you are trying to say about cut-offs and logic.... you don't make any sense, I have not argued that spirituality exists because a lot of people believe it does. If 95% of the people on this planet, reported seeing the moon turn purple last night, we would have to consider the phenomenon did happen, and that number of people weren't suffering from mass delusion. If 95% of the people reported this happening every night, for all of human existence, we couldn't deny the phenomenon is happening. Even if there were no physical explanation, we could not deny the phenomenon is happening. It's called "objective reality!"



> Again you are positing that I have a divine sense, but you haven't' demonstrated this sense to exist.



70k years... billions of people. The single most defining attribute of the species. Yes, I have.



> Its okay boo-boo. Your idiocy is really easy to exploit. Your reading comprehension is very poor. I'm not going to repeat myself. I consider the point conceded and expect you not to rehash this, since you keep on losing every point you try to advance.



Oh, but you have repeated yourself, repeatedly. You even attempt to repeat me sometimes and claim it was you. I'm going to always lose every point I try to advance with you on the existence of spiritual nature, because you reject spiritual evidence. I conceded that point in the OP, you've only confirmed it. 



> I have proven that evidence is not necessarily subjective, yet you continue with the same old tired line.



LMFAO... AFTER claiming "evidence, by definition, is not subjective." When I pointed out you were incorrect, you adopted MY position, and started pretending I was arguing against my own position. That was absolutely fascinating, I have never seen this tactic used in debate before. "Evidence" is subject to whether we accept it as evidence, and then, it is subject to whether we consider it strong or weak evidence. Now let's see if that prompts you to pretend you've made that statement and not me? 



> I hear this all the time from theists. If evidence is necessarily subjective, then you have no claim to your own "spiritual evidence" pointing to anything objectively existing. If you admit that it doesn't exist objectively, then it only exists in your mind, which means it doesn't actually exist. You have backed yourself into a logical corner from which you can not now escape. I expect you to concede your points, logically, but as you are entirely illogical, I know that you will not. A discussion  about evidence is one of epistemology, not the subject/object problem.



Look... Evidence has nothing to do with objective or subjective. You are now tangling yourself up in your own barbed wire. "Exist" means a physical existence to you, it's all it CAN mean, since you do not accept or acknowledge "spiritual existence." Since spiritual nature does not possess physical existence, you have "objectively" evaluated that it doesn't exist physically. I "objectively" agree with you, spiritual nature doesn't exist physically. However, I believe that spiritual nature can be objectively evaluated, if you objectively comprehend spiritual existence. Since you refuse to accept spiritual nature, you believe the spiritual evidence to be "anecdotal" or subjective. From a spiritual understanding, the evidence is absolutely objective and overwhelming. 

Objective and subjective, are evaluations WE assign, depending on our perceptions. What is "objective evidence" to you, may be "subjective evidence" to me, or it may not even be "evidence" at all, depending on my perspective. You want to flood the board with some long-winded explanation of how some evidence is "empirical" and some is "anecdotal" but again, this is subject to evaluation by the individual. Spiritually connected people find their evidence empirical, while you find it anecdotal. In other words, the evidence is subjective.



> I knew you were going to take a 2nd grader's stance on this. I shouldn't have expected someone of your mental incapacity to be able to understand reality on reality's terms. I NEVER SAID EVIDENCE CAN'T BE SUBJECTIVE. I said it is not necessarily subjective, because it is not in the definition.



What started this whole conversation on the subject, was your quote: "Evidence is, by definition, not subjective," and I proved your statement is incorrect. Since then, you have tried to adopt MY refutation of your incorrect statement, and claim that I am arguing against it, or that you brilliantly made the observation I refuted your incorrect statement with. It's getting really bad when you start stealing your opponents points in a debate. 



> Stop stretching my words! I explained this to you clearly in my last post, yet you continuously and dishonestly assert that I am saying something I did not, because at this point, its all you think you have on me. I advise you to let go of it, as you are wrong her as well. Admittedly, i put it a little vaguely at first. I should have said, "Evidence is not necessarily subjective, by definition," which is what I meant. Regardless, I explained my position clearly, and twice in the last post, and yet you hold me to a position I do not myself hold. This is a straw-man. You misunderstood my position to begin with, and upon clarification, refuse to accept said clarification for purposes of rhetoric and mockery. You really are a little child.



ALL evidence is subjective! It is subject to our personal evaluation, of whether or not it meets the criteria of evidence in the first place, then as to whether or not it is empirical or anecdotal, then as to whether it is strong or weak evidence. This varies from person to person, *subject* to their personal perceptions. You stated it was not subjective by definition... and have since been arguing nothing in the definition has anything to do with subjective or objective, which was my refutation of your incorrect statement. 



> You haven't done anything of note in this entire thread. You haven't convinced anyone of your proposition, and only preach to the choir which consist of the fools who already believe your conclusion. Your reasoning is invalid and unsound, and does not follow from your ridiculous premises.



I predicted in the OP, that if you can't accept or acknowledge spiritual nature, the question can't be answered for you. I'm not presenting my argument to convince people, but because it is a valid and legitimate argument. My reasoning is valid and sound until you can prove otherwise, which you haven't. My premise is not ridiculous until you've proven that to be true, and you haven't. You keep running and hiding behind physical science, claiming you don't have to prove a negative, you have no burden of proof whatsoever, you can claim spiritual nature does not exist, and that is not to be challenged but can't be proven.  



> Find me where a definition of "evidence" that explicitly indicates the quality of it being "subjective." When you can't, you will understand what I meant, which is a true statement.



Find me a definition of evidence which says it is not subjective. When you can't, you will understand I have refuted your incorrect statement, and you'll have to so some mighty spinning in order to pretend you said something else. Oh wait.... that's what you're doing now! 

ALL evidence is subjective, meaning, it is all subject to interpretation. 



> I will try for a third time, because dealing with someone so mentally inept is kind of fun, but only because your pride is astounding and you deserve a hard fall: Nowhere in the definition of evidence, is the concept of subjectivity found. Therefore, by definition, evidence is not subjective.



This is the most ridiculous spin I have ever heard. If the definition of evidence stated that evidence is not subjective, it would be as you have stated. Since it doesn't state that, by definition, evidence has nothing to do with how the evidence is evaluated. The same exact evidence can be objectively or subjectively evaluated, or not considered evidence at all. Examples of all three are found in this thread. 



> I admit to putting it vaguely, but this was merely a reaction to your having said that by definition, evidence WAS subjective, when it isn't. It is nowhere indicated in the definition.



Well then you can't say "by definition" if it's nowhere indicated in the definition! Why are you being so thick about this? You were wrong, I proved you wrong, and you don't like that... I get it, I hate being proven wrong too! It usually doesn't result in me ripping into page long tirades about it, trying desperately to spin out of what I said. I never claimed evidence was "by definition" subjective. All evidence is subject to evaluation as evidence, whether it meets the criteria as evidence, whether it is strong or weak, anecdotal or empirical, and this is all dependent upon individual subjective or objective reasoning based on personal perception. 



> You don't reach the ideas of subjectivity or objectivity until you get to the different kinds of evidence. If we are talking about anecdotal evidence, then it is 100% subjective. If we are talking about empirical evidence, then it is not, and points to something that exists objectively. Get it? If we have to go over this again, because you decided to say that evidence is necessarily subjective, while at the same time saying evidence can be either subjective or objective (I can go find it), then you are a fucking asshat.



Even if your evidence is what you consider "empirical," I can subjectively evaluate otherwise, depending on my own perspective. That a fossil exists, is empirical evidence that an object physically exists. This empirical evidence is still subject to evaluation, if I don't believe it is the result of deposits surrounding a living organism and creating a fossil, I may find the "evidence" to be subjective, that a fossil exists, even though an object objectively exists. You may believe this fossil is evidence of evolution happening, and I may disagree with your evaluation, it is subject to interpretation... subjective. 



> Subjective means mind-dependant, and by logical consequence, it is subject to our interpretation and evaluation.



ALL evidence, regardless of what it is, FITS this criteria. 




> However, this doesn't mean that evidence is subjective.



YES... IT DOES! 



> This would mean evidence only exists in the mind, but this is not true.



Making the determination that something IS evidence, is a subjective evaluation. Determining evidence is empirical or anecdotal, is a subjective evaluation. Objective reality is self-evident, it doesn't need evidence, has no use for it. 



> This would only be anecdotal evidence. *However, whether one considers something to be evidence, IS subjective*, but this says nothing about the existential condition of empirical or anecdotal evidence. Empirical evidence is available to the senses, anecdotal evidence is not. The dispute over what to call evidence is epistemology. Something that is reliably demonstrated to be  evidence of something else, must be empirical, otherwise it is simply heresay, which is all you have. I can't believe how many times you need to be explained things! It's crazy.



Gawd almighty, you are the longest-winded fucker on the internet! How much do you have to try and spin your way around the incorrect statement you made? I can say that flowers are empirical evidence that god exists, and you can subjectively disagree with my assessment. You can say a fossil is empirical evidence that evolution happened, and I can subjectively disagree with your assessment. You can claim my belief in god is anecdotal, and I can claim your disbelief in god is anecdotal. You are attempting to construct a philosophy by which, YOU can determine what is valid evidence and what isn't, without regard to anything I have to say. But that is a nonsensical argument. 



> You are twisting my words all around. I never said evidence is an unassailable fact.



If evidence, by definition, is not subjective, that is exactly what you said. Yes, I understand you screwed up and said something rather stupid and indefensible, but instead of admitting you said something stupid and indefensible, you've chosen to try and spin the argument around on me, and make it appear that you have bested me in the point making department. I must say, it's a bold and daring move to do what you've attempted here. To try and take your opponent's position away by adopting the position yourself, and then spinning the argument around so that it appears you have made the brilliant point, which contradicts your initial statement. Ballsy, indeed! 



> Evidence is used to determine what is true about objective reality, as best as possible. Our reasoning about what is and is not evidence and what we can call evidence, IS SUBJECTIVE.



Exactly! Which is what I said, which is contradictory to your statement: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective." 

Objective reality is important to define here. Your "objective reality" does not include spiritual nature, and mine does. That is why we have a problem agreeing on what is objective or subjective, and what is empirical or anecdotal. These are all perceptions based on our personal understanding and reasoning. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp, it's almost like you think "evidence, subjective or objective" is determined by you and science alone, and nothing else can ever challenge what you perceive. But no one died and made you Empirical King of Evidence, that I am aware of. 



> This relates to an individual's epistemology. However, the evidence itself, can not be called subjective, especially if it is claimed to be demonstrable of something objective. Given your premises, the very least you would need to prove, is that humans have a sixth sense which allows them to interact with the divine or spiritual and give them knowledge of the divine/spiritual realm. This divine sense is something that would exist in physical reality, within the human body somewhere, and could be studied empirically. Can you cite one scientific, peer-reviwed paper that confirms the existence of this sixth divine sense? No, because it doesn't exist. Therefore, you can't logically prove that any human, ever, was actually interacting with anything outside of its own mind.



Humans have been communicating and interacting with spiritual nature for all their existence as humans. If the connection were imaginary, the attribute would have died out long ago, and humans would not be so inclined. Now you want to jump back into physical science and what can be physically proven to exist physically in a physical universe, why? We are not discussing a physical nature or entity, or physical existence. Why should physical science apply? Well... it's because, all you believe in is physical nature. There is no such thing as "spiritual existence" and the term simply doesn't make logical sense to you. For ANYTHING to "exist" it must have a verifiable physical material presence in reality, otherwise it is non-existent. This is how you have justified your disbelief in spiritual nature. 



> "Faith" in spiritual evidence is a contradiction. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, therefore, if you are citing faith, you have no evidence, by definition. Get yourself some academic help. You are making a mess of this place.



You really need to work on your definitions of things, this is becoming apparent. Nowhere in the definition of "faith" does it say there is no evidence. Let me ask you, do you have faith that gravity will work today the same as it worked yesterday on the planet Earth? Now, isn't there some evidence to support this faith? 

There are an abundance of things science "has faith" in, like theories. Are you claiming that scientific theories are not based on evidence? Over thousands of years, billions of people claim to have evidence of spiritual interaction, blessings, miracles, feats of both inner and physical strength, endurance, perseverance and inspiration. Many of them were willing to go to their graves fighting for this spiritual connection they fully believed was real, and had evidence to support. You dismiss this as 70k years of mass delusion and imaginary security blankets for irrational fears, found nowhere else in nature. 



> I see this mistake with theists all the time. They claim everything is a result of faith, simply because that is their epistemology and how they have garnered knowledge. In fact, it is not knowledge, simply their belief that they have knowledge. How hilarious that you would try to consider yourself an atheist, yet talk of faith epistemologies while making a "definitive" argument for god. Let me get this straight: you're an atheist, yet have bound yourself with some responsibility to prove god and argue it with your "fellow atheists"? I find this hard to believe. You are either seriously confused, have some mental issues, or are just a poe.



As I have explained, I don't personally run around calling myself "Atheist" and this is simply a designation made with regard to the epistemology of the word itself and how it applies to my personal spiritual view. I am non-theistic. That is a better descriptor than Atheist. I do not believe in organized religious incarnations of God. Most Atheists claim no God exists, while agnostics leave the possibility open, they just don't believe in God. I do believe God exists, and humans spiritually can connect to God. However, God is something humans have difficulty comprehending or relating to, so they created Religions. These are supposed to explain God, but they are constructed by humans who only have the concepts of human nature to relate to, so God becomes filled with humanistic attributes, none of which conform to what I believe in as God. 

Now, I say... "what I believe in" and that is a bit of an understatement, because I actually know this spiritual energy does exist, I routinely rely on it and use it daily in my everyday life, and have done so for the past 40 years or so. Convincing me that it doesn't exist, would literally be like me trying to convince you that your own mother doesn't exist. I don't need "faith" at all, I personally know and understand my connection to God, and I believe a LOT of spiritually connected people see it the same way. 



> You have to provide sound reasoning and evidence of your point. My refutation consists of pointing out this obvious fact, which I've done, and you have failed to respond to. You continue to re-assert your points, as if you haven't before, and yet somehow, on this time around, it is going to make a difference. This is the sign of someone inflexible and un-dynamic. In others, dumb.



You've not provided any evidence supported by science, nature, or logic, to support your contention that spiritual nature does not exist and is a figment of our imagination. You've presented nothing in the way of science, nature or logic, to support your conclusion that humans developed spirituality to cope with fear of death, which no other living thing seems to grapple with, or is troubled by. You've show no scientific examples in nature of any living thing, creating a placebo for knowledge not yet obtained, and yet, clinging to that placebo even in the light of astounding knowledge. In short, nothing you have provided, makes any rational sense whatsoever. It is a hodge-podge of quickly made up excuses and explanations for something you don't want to admit exists and is part of nature itself. 



> Insults aside, which you actually deserve after all of this, you have not proved that the connection is real. This is the nexus of the whole argument. Again, you would need humans to have a "sense" of the divine somewhere on our physical body. If it doesn't exist, then you can't claim the connection is real. It really is that simple. Prove a divine sense. Even then, you haven't proven the spiritual realm exists, logically, but it would be a start. So far, you haven't even gotten off ground with your grandiose assumptions.



The connection IS real, or spirituality would not still exist in humans as our most defining attribute. You continue to talk about what is "real" in the only context you understand "real" to be, a physical one. I understand this, and I pointed this out in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You continue to prove my point beautifully, you refuse to acknowledge or accept any other kind of "real" except physical. The nexus of the whole argument is whether or not you accept spiritual nature and evidence. Unless you do, you can't comprehend spiritual existence, the term does not compute. 

Spiritual nature most certainly exists, it created physical nature. This is supported by your own scientific theory of Big Bang. Nothing in physical nature could have caused the creation of the physical universe, because physical nature did not yet exist. This leaves spiritual energy as the most likely explanation. 

You also cannot rationalize, through science, how the same basic elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., all exist in the universe, but sometimes 'magically' possess organic attribute. Why protons, electrons and neutrons exist in all matter, but sometimes 'magically' possess the attributes of electricity. Why mass and density sometimes determines gravity, and sometimes it is 'magically' caused by atmospheric pressure. You can explain HOW physics work, but you are unable to explain WHY. 



> I never said anything about evidence only being physical. You are putting words in my mouth. At best, I am saying *we live in a physical universe*, therefore the only EMPIRICAL evidence we have ever found is physical.



But we don't live in a physical universe, *YOU* live in one. Most of us live in a physical _and spiritual_ universe which coexist. We can make connection to the spiritual universe, an attribute you have obviously been unable to master. Those who are able to connect spiritually, find overwhelming spiritual evidence and enlightenment. Your disbelief, does not refute this, it only proves that you disbelieve. 



> If you don't have empirical evidence, then you don't have an argument. That doesn't mean it has to be physical, as this is based on induction is isn't necessarily the case, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find non-physical empirical evidence. If you did, you've have won the nobel and wouldn't be on a fucking online debate forum debating atheists anonymously.  Also, I never equated objective reality to the physical. You did, and incorrectly. Nor did I ever say that evidence is defined by it being physical. I simply asked for any evidence at all, and you fail to provide any.



I have presented my evidence in the OP. It is comprised of both physical and spiritual evidence. You reject the spiritual evidence as "nonsense" and dismiss the physical evidence as 70k+ years of mass delusion, by the most advanced species of life. You've presented NO valid science or evidence to contradict anything I said in the OP. Therefore, my argument remains unchallenged. 



> Aristotle invented the idea of natural inquiry, but it wasn't science as we would call it, it was "natural philosophy," or an attempt to explain the world WITHOUT supernatural elements. It wasn't modern science and Aristotle was wrong about everything he thought, such as the motion of objects. Plato had nothing to do with science. The modern scientific method was developed until the 11th century by a Muslim. The fact that they believed in a spiritual realm, again, is not evidence of a spiritual realm. When  you stop making this logical leap, you will understand why your OP is complete and utter horse shit topped with shit sprinkles.



Aristotle and Plato are both known as the predecessors to modern science. But that was not the point, they both had firm beliefs in a spiritual universe. So did Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and others. It's not until the late 20th century, we see an emergence of young Internet Philosophers, advocating their religions of disbelief, regarding spiritual nature. 



> You have yet to prove that we connect to a spiritual realm daily, and that it is any more than a belief, just like any other. This is a huge claim, and you're only evidence is human belief itself. Were you to present this to a philosophy or a science or a religious teacher (who was honest), they would laugh in your face.



I never said that "we connect" at all. You obviously don't connect, daily or ever, to something you don't believe in. I think any teacher would conclude that before you can teach something, there first has to be a willingness to accept knowledge regarding the teaching itself. I can't teach French to someone who disbelieves French language exists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What does this have to do with who I brought to your attention  Pandas Thumb really ?

Scientist Ralph Seelke.

Professor Collin Reeves.

Edward Peltzer Chemist.

Chris Williams Ph.D in Biochemistry


----------



## MaryL (Jun 12, 2013)

I have a little saying, (call it Mary's conundrum): There is  as much proof that disproves a supreme being's existence as there is to prove it. 
That being said, isn&#8217;t this debate a waste of time? IF there is a god, that is one thing.  Then what religion is the true religion?  And how could you tell the false ones from the true ones?    Or, on the other hand, there isn&#8217;t a God and we are just wasting our time &#8230; 
With all the pain and suffering in the world, either god is a real jerk or life is just random happenstance.  With all the evidence given, who can tell the difference?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ralph Seelke - intelligent design apologist

Ralph Seelke - intelligent design apologist

It's as though you're in a permanent stupor.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what? the fossils show evolution ..so the hole is in your head.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


As the content of the quoted article is not factual or scientific it proves nothing as it is based on a religious belief not evidence.
really dummy?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


then why did you?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that's a dodge .  

now answer this question! : test the bible and creation science with skepticism..


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2013)

MaryL said:


> I have a little saying, (call it Mary's conundrum): There is  as much proof that disproves a supreme being's existence as there is to prove it.
> That being said, isnt this debate a waste of time? IF there is a god, that is one thing.  Then what religion is the true religion?  And how could you tell the false ones from the true ones?    Or, on the other hand, there isnt a God and we are just wasting our time
> With all the pain and suffering in the world, either god is a real jerk or life is just random happenstance.  With all the evidence given, who can tell the difference?



I've seen no evidence to disprove a spiritual being's existence. Every time I have requested it, I've been told you can't prove a negative. There also seems to be no question on part of those who accept spiritual evidence, that spiritual nature does exist, and the evidence is overwhelming. Those who do not accept spiritual evidence have successfully made the point, a physical realization of spiritual things is not happening. 

This debate is indeed a colossal waste of time for those who do not accept spiritual evidence, and I can't rationalize why so many of them would waste so much time, attempting to answer it. Well, actually, I can rationalize why... they are anti-religious people, who have a somewhat personal vendetta against religion and religious believers. This is why your conundrum suddenly evolves into a question of religious philosophy, instead of remaining focused on human spirituality. 

Spiritual nature created the physical universe and all life in it. This is an intelligent force, which designed and created the physical universe, including all the physical science and physics that accompany it. Humans have the capacity to acknowledge this force, and to connect with it, and this attribute has always been a part of who and what we are as humans.  Religions are byproducts of this spiritual connection, along with the fears of mortality and questions of immortality. They are creations of man, in order to explain this very real spiritual connection humans are able to make with spiritual nature.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 wrong!  interpretation and explanation are to show where not if...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


only in your dreams.. 
1 breeding pair  of most any species in not a viable breeding strategy ..
you've killed nothing, our whole species evolved not just a pair of mutated hominids...
as always you're spewing creationist shit!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie how many times must I mention specific parts of the human anatomy plus parts of a cell that didn't happen by chance but by purposeful design.



You mention many things. The majority of those things are false.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I have a little saying, (call it Mary's conundrum): There is  as much proof that disproves a supreme being's existence as there is to prove it.
> ...



I have seen evidence that disproves a spiritual being's existence. You have provided no evidence to disprove me.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2013)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I have a little saying, (call it Mary's conundrum): There is  as much proof that disproves a supreme being's existence as there is to prove it.
> ...


.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 12, 2013)

We are just wasting our time here. La-Te-da.  God will take care of this mess, otherwise sh*t just happens, we all know that... Religion is a beautiful dilution. Prove it&#8230;. GOD is real?. How does anyone PROVE it?  I don't care anymore. Nobody has done it here with words or anything else.  I would think it shouldn't be so hard.  But in 2000 years, all the religions ever created by man have proven to be little more that well-meaning brainwashing drivel.  If there is a god, it doesn&#8217;t matter one way or the other. God will always win, or if there isn&#8217;t a god, we are  wasting our mortal  time debating this.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Daws is really working hard since he got caught in another lie in the creationists thread lol.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws is really working hard since he got caught in another lie in the creationists thread lol.


since I didn't lie once how could I be caught twice.
a quick check of you posts reveals you've been hard at restoring a non existent rep.

see post #2825  to see who the true lair is .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you're now suggesting that all life came from more than one cell increasing the odds agains't Spontaneous generation as the naturalists explanation on how life started. Daws your intelligence is baffling.

Daws there were approximately 300 million people 2,000 years ago and it took 1,600 years for the population to double to 600 million so in 400 years we went from 600 million to the current which is 7 billion there is no way man has been on this planet for as long that has been claimed.

You can paste up any fantasy you like it does not add up with the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Daws is really working hard since he got caught in another lie in the creationists thread lol.
> ...





http://www.usmessageboard.com/7369608-post16648.html


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 12, 2013)

Anyways daws do not quote me anymore I have no use for a lying shit stain.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


thanks for showcasing your total lack of basic reading comp.
you have no evidence of the Adam and eve (one breeding pair) myth.
also as all way you got your pop numbers and dates from creationist sites or willfully misinterpreted others .
a common practice for you.
either way it's a false premise..   

fact: What was the population of the world in the past and when will world population reach 8 billion? 




 The chart above clearly illustrates how world population has changed in history. The US Census Bureau has assembled a table with estimated population from 10000 BC to 1950 according to different sources.

At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987). During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.




Year Population 
1 200 million 
1000 275 million 
1500 450 million 
1650 500 million 
1750 700 million 
1804 1 billion 
1850 1.2 billion 
1900 1.6 billion 
1927 2 billion 
1950 2.55 billion 
1955 2.8 billion 
1960 3 billion 
1965 3.3 billion 
1970 3.7 billion 
1975 4 billion 
1980 4.5 billion 
1985 4.85 billion 
1987 5 billion 
1990 5.3 billion 
1995 5.7 billion 
1999 6 billion 
2000 6.1 billion 
2005 6.45 billion 
2010 6.8 billion 
2011 7 billion 
2020 7.7 billion 
2025 8 billion 
2030 8.3 billion 
2040 8.8 billion 
2045 9 billion 
2050 9.2 billion 

World Population Clock: 7 Billion People - Worldometers


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Anyways daws do not quote me anymore I have no use for a lying shit stain.


I'll quote you as much as I like..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


once again SLAP DICK lies! WHEN I SAID NOT COLLEGE LEVEL SCIENCE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MOLCULE QUESTION.. not the course ....so you lose again hahaha!
if I was unclear too bad.
as to what program it was I've already answered that too.. 
__________________


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2013)

MaryL said:


> We are just wasting our time here.



Are we?



> La-Te-da.



And... Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da!



> God will take care of this mess, otherwise sh*t just happens, we all know that...



Right! 



> Religion is a beautiful dilution.



Okay! 



> Prove it. GOD is real?



As the OP argues, it totally depends on whether you accept and understand spiritual nature and evidence. Real means something different than physically real, when applied to the spiritual, and this concept can only be understood if you accept spiritual reality. God is spiritually real, not physically.



> How does anyone PROVE it?



By objectively evaluating the physical scientific and spiritual evidence, with an open mind.



> I don't care anymore.



Okay! 



> Nobody has done it here with words or anything else.



It's done in the OP. Nothing in the OP has been refuted with science, logic or nature. 



> I would think it shouldn't be so hard.



Wasn't that hard, it took 5-6 paragraphs. 



> But in 2000 years, all the religions ever created by man have proven to be little more that well-meaning brainwashing drivel.



I thought they were "beautiful delutions" (sic)? 



> If there is a god, it doesnt matter one way or the other. God will always win, or if there isnt a god, we are  wasting our mortal  time debating this.



God will win what? Why should God need to win something? If there IS a God, and we can connect to it through meditation and realize inner strength, peace, inspiration, happiness... don't you think it is good to realize that? I wouldn't call that a waste of time, but... If you have decided to close your mind to spiritual nature and refuse to accept such a thing exists, then you are correct, it is a huge waste of your mortal time debating this question, it can never be answered to your satisfaction... which begs the question, why are so many of you here still arguing?


----------



## flowery (Jun 12, 2013)

What do we call this need that force us to raise our hands to the sky ask for help ? !!

Every person feels by their own that they have a Lord, a creator 
and feel the need for it 
and if they get in trouble ,, their hands, their eyes and their hearts headed to the sky requesting relief from their Lord.


----------



## flowery (Jun 13, 2013)

.

.​I just want to say to all atheists who believe that the universe was created by chance and that there is no God

Since you believe in coincidence, If you want to change the color of your home yourself, I want you to  buy paint and brush , and brought a chair and sit back and wait, the *CHANCE *will paint the house. ^ ^




.​


----------



## hobelim (Jun 13, 2013)

flowery said:


> What do we call this need that force us to raise our hands to the sky ask for help ? !!.




superstition.




flowery said:


> Every person feels by their own that they have a Lord, a creator and feel the need for it and if they get in trouble ,, their hands, their eyes and their hearts headed to the sky requesting relief from their Lord.




nonsense. not everybody appeals to the sky for help, not even all believers in God.



Some people hear that there is a God, don't believe and rely on themselves.

Some people hear that there is a God and try to see if he will  solve their problems.

some people hear that there is a God and try to see if they can do what he requires.




The way to eternal life is to do what God commands.  To disregard what God commands in scripture and incessantly ask someone in the sky to do things for you is the basis for a myriad of mental disorders.


There is no such thing as a God in the sky.

The kingdom of Heaven is within.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



SLAPDICK eh.

Look you can't study molecular biology without a background in physics and chemistry. So no you lied the question I asked was a college level question concerning molecules. You were making crap up about what field of science you need to understand the question that was asked. High School kids today are not ready for molecular biology we can safely say when you were in school they were less prepared.


Introduction to DNA introduction to Dna


2 Major Preconceptions

Preconception 1. Study in one field proceeds without contributions from, or connections to, other fields.

This belief occurs, in part, because scientific disciplines are treated as isolated subjects in most schools. Most science educators, however, recognize the many connections among biology, chemistry, and physics, and understand the need for an integrated approach to science teaching. For example, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY is a hybrid discipline, drawing upon concepts and techniques from physics, chemistry, and biology. This hybrid nature explains in part why high school students may find the study of molecular biology challenging. They are confronted by a science that is abstract and seems far removed from classical biology. Moreover, many students are introduced to the subject at a point in their education where they have yet to take a formal course in either chemistry or physics. Without this scientific foundation, they are ill-prepared to undertake the study of life at its most funda-mental level


http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih4/technology/guide/info-technology.htm


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Is this not what I said ? 2,000 years ago there were 300 million people on planet earth and it took another 1,600 years to get to 600 million.

By the way Adam and Eve are not the ones that populated the earth they were just the first parents. It was populated by three couples Noah's three son's and their wives. hehehe.

Daws with all the variables figured in that would affect the human population growth rate the growth rate went from 300 million to 7 billion in 2,000 years. They also used all the variables and the human growth rate going back some 4,500 years ago and they came up with an amazingly close number to the current population.

You are living in a fantasy world to believe that Homo Sapiens have been on this planet for let's say 200,000 years I think not the data does not support it. We would have far more humans today.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > What do we call this need that force us to raise our hands to the sky ask for help ? !!.
> ...



No it would be faith.

Mental disorders can arise from putting to much faith in man's explanations concerning nature.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > What do we call this need that force us to raise our hands to the sky ask for help ? !!.
> ...



Wow, that post didn't turn out like I was expecting!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...



Even if we use your usual, derelict standards as a reference, the above reaches new levels of absurdity.

Yeah, too bad we can't return to those good old days of Christian church imposed fear and ignorance, burning at the stake, jail and torture for suggesting church dogma was wrong, etc. 

Thank Zeus people like you are a strange curiosity, acknowledged only with a chuckle, much like a clown.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 13, 2013)

The people in Noah's time said the same thing.
Where is the proof of God?
Then the floods came.
Same thing now - Where is the proof of God?
This time it's going to be the extreme heat of the Sun, scorching you with great heat.
And they will do the same thing now as back then, they blasphemed God then during the flood and they will do the same with the extreme heat of the sun.
Revelation is happening right before our very eyes and still they will not believe.


----------



## Wake (Jun 13, 2013)

There is no unrefutable evidence that a god exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, exceptional claims ought to have exceptional evidence. Neither one side nor the other can definitively prove that a god does or doesn't exist. All we have left to do is wonder about it.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 13, 2013)

Wake said:


> There is no unrefutable evidence that a god exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, exceptional claims ought to have exceptional evidence. Neither one side nor the other can definitively prove that a god does or doesn't exist. All we have left to do is wonder about it.




A person cannot give you what they do not have; a person who has never seen or heard from God in their entire life cannot lead you to him, whatever they claim to believe..




One thing you could do is assume that if there is a God and you cannot perceive him the flaw must be within you.

To assume there is no God simply because you cannot perceive him is at best as silly as believing in the existence of a God that you have never seen or heard from in your entire life.


What then?

purify your mind and be refined whether you believe or don't believe and when you take a new look at life with a pure mind you will have become a creature capable of perceiving the living God.

remember?

"Blessed are the pure of mind for they shall see God."

stop arguing about whether God exists or not and just do it and then you will have proof whatever you presently believe or don't believe.....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I have a little saying, (call it Mary's conundrum): There is  as much proof that disproves a supreme being's existence as there is to prove it.
> ...



So this "*colossal waste of time*" is all because Boss has been hiding his real "*creationist/intelligent design*" agenda. All of Boss's previous denials have been proven worthless by this admission about his God. He may as well just admit the truth and stop pretending now. No one was buying his act anyway. But being what he is he will just deny that he said any of the above and continue to bluster and lie about himself and his true agenda.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> It's done in the OP. *Nothing in the OP has been refuted with science, logic or nature. *



As usual Boss is wrong and in denial on all 3 counts.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > What do we call this need that force us to raise our hands to the sky ask for help ? !!.
> ...



You could add this one to your list too;

Some people reach an agreement with God and in exchange for their not having to spend every Sunday pretending to worship him he doesn't have to bother ignoring their prayers that he had no intention of answering anyway.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...





LOL... according to the stories God is more than willing to negotiate with a reasonable person.


----------



## numan (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> ....which begs the question, why are so many of you here still arguing?


To irritate you and waste your time? · · 

.


----------



## numan (Jun 13, 2013)

flowery said:


> I just want to say to all atheists who believe that the universe was created by chance and that there is no God
> 
> Since you believe in coincidence, If you want to change the color of your home yourself, I want you to  buy paint and brush , and brought a chair and sit back and wait, the *CHANCE *will paint the house.


I would found a religion and then threaten the saps who believe it with Hell Fire unless they painted my house For the Greater Blory of God.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ....which begs the question, why are so many of you here still arguing?
> ...



And you are failing miserably at that as well.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > What do we call this need that force us to raise our hands to the sky ask for help ? !!.
> ...



This demonstrates once again, what ignoramuses typical atheists are these days.

They reject the concept of some sky God that hurls lightning bolts, etc, BUT SO DO WE.

That is not the Christian concept of God and I have not heard or read anything from an atheist that shows they understand the idea at all.

And bullshit like you just posted simply reminds me that most atheists today are atheists because they are really too stupid and lazy to try to understand it, so of course they don't believe in God.

But the God they don't believe in is not the God we worship.  duh


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



He thinks that irritating Christians somehow validates his existence, but really the truth is numan isn't really capable of grasping your points, so why bother?

Derideo is worth some time, but the rest are just yanking everyone's chain and back slapping their fellow heathen.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

numan said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to say to all atheists who believe that the universe was created by chance and that there is no God
> ...



You are so full of shit.

Just try it dumbass and see what flies.

You know that response was just rhetorical blather. Which is why you reject God; you are an asshole.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you are wrong and no amount of fudging will make you right.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

flowery said:


> .
> 
> .​I just want to say to all atheists who believe that* the universe was created by chance* and that there is no God
> 
> ...



Your fallacy is assuming that the universe was "created" in the first place. The universe has always existed and will always exist (per the Laws of Physics) so there is no need for any "creator" at all.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

Wake said:


> There is no unrefutable evidence that a god exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, exceptional claims ought to have exceptional evidence. Neither one side nor the other can definitively prove that a god does or doesn't exist. All we have left to do is wonder about it.



For those who cannot accept spiritual nature, this is true. The definitive evidence can only be realized if you believe the spiritual evidence. Those who accept spiritual nature, find overwhelming incontrovertible evidence, they aren't the least bit in doubt and wondering.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for time/space to have ALWAYS existed, else we would never have arrived at the PRESENT time.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > There is no unrefutable evidence that a god exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, exceptional claims ought to have exceptional evidence. Neither one side nor the other can definitively prove that a god does or doesn't exist. All we have left to do is wonder about it.
> ...



First Cause, Ontological, and Teleological arguments require no spirituality.

The historical circumstances of Judah and the resurrection of Christ also do not have a spirituality pre-requisite.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And you are a moron and no amount of posturing like you know anything will ever make you worth a bucket of spit.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



The universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. The only theory which does't theorize this, speculates the universe expands and contracts, but this also defies physics. Everything within our universe has a beginning and end, so your theory also defies logic.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...






hey, if that's all true then you had better alert some of those other Christians who are gibbering incoherently about being 'taken up' into the sky literally any minute before people start thinking you all are a bunch of confused loonies.

And I agree that much of what is refuted by unbelievers about scripture is not what scripture is about.


So, what exactly is it that your 'we' believes about God? 

Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe in a trinity? 

Define the God you worship and how you worship that God.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...



Militant secularists prefer to think of the pre-Big Bang period as material but more expansive than our own, and somehow still eternal. Hawkins poses the idea of imaginary time and circular time flow, but all this does is kick the can down the road.

An infinitely existing universe is impossible.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 the fantasy is yours;"By the way Adam and Eve are not the ones that populated the earth they were just the first parents. It was populated by three couples Noah's three son's and their wives. hehehe." ywc.
it good you can laugh at yourself, everyone else is.
so IT WAS NOAHS SONS? (SNICKER)  if that were fact then the wives would have to have been black (African) Asian, Caucasian ....just for starters...
there is no proof of a great flood or Noah ...so you're not just wrong but outrageously so..


----------



## numan (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > There is no unrefutable evidence that a god exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, exceptional claims ought to have exceptional evidence. Neither one side nor the other can definitively prove that a god does or doesn't exist. All we have left to do is wonder about it.
> ...



They should be, the credulous fools !!! · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what ever you say dear!


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> He thinks that irritating Christians somehow validates his existence, but really the truth is numan isn't really capable of grasping your points, so why bother?
> 
> Derideo is worth some time, but the rest are just yanking everyone's chain and back slapping their fellow heathen.



Dorito is worse, he just wants to lie his ass off as much as possible. He claims the OP has been debunked, but doesn't offer a single point of debunking. Then, he continues to maintain I am a covert Christian Fundamentalist operative, secretly trying to indoctrinate you with my dangerous Christian teachings. Of course, if I am truly a Christian who is forsaking and denying Christ, I have condemned myself to eternal damnation, but I guess Dorito thinks my fooling him is well worth that.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> hey, if that's all true then you had better alert some of those other Christians who are gibbering incoherently about being 'taken up' into the sky literally any minute before people start thinking you all are a bunch of confused loonies.



1. The sky is just symbolism. It does not indicate the actual location of Heaven or God. Its just metaphor in a way, though I think it will actually happen that way, but not because it has to because God is there.

2. Most Christians simply do not have a deep grasp of their religion. What can I say? Faith doesn't require this and so most never bother.



hobelim said:


> And I agree that much of what is refuted by unbelievers about scripture is not what scripture is about.



Interesting. You sound like you are worth discussing this with. I am thinking of starting a thread in the nice discussion Care Bear forum; would you be interested in participating?



hobelim said:


> So, what exactly is it that your 'we' believes about God?



Roman Catholic... actually  just catholic as I agree more with Eastern catholics that the Roman variety any more.



hobelim said:


> Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe in a trinity?



Yes Jesus is a part of the Godhead. He is an eternal extension of the Father, and the Holy Ghost is the personification of their relationship. All three have their own persons, and all three are eternal. 

The ancient Greeks had a philosophy called Emanationism that kind of laid the ground work for the idea of the Trinity.




hobelim said:


> Define the God you worship and how you worship that God.



God is an eternal Being who has no flow of consciousness. Every thought He has ever had He is having in the immediate 'moment'. I say moment, but as He exists outside the flow of time, all is the present to Him. When you read of God making a decision, it is something already previously decided, like the turns you  know you will take on the route to work.

He is Holy and Omnipotent, but desires the free worship of mankind, so He gave us free will. At first He placed mankind in an environment of innocence but man wanted to understand morality and so became responsible for being moral.

God will eventually welcome all into Heaven and He does not reject True repentance and He does not allow any place to exist outside of His knowledge so I believe that He will bring repentant souls from Gehena to Purgatory as they truly repent.

Hell is simply the place of the dead and has a gray scale of existence but a gulf separates the punishments of Gehena from the pleasures of Paradise or the bosom of Abraham.

When Jesus died on the cross He went to Hell and opened the way for the righteous dead to go into Heaven which is the divine presence of God. When we are judged after death we meet God in a form we relate to holiness and experience a love, peace and pleasure that Paradise cannot compare to. At first the pleasures of Paradise are fulfilling, but eventually we grow inured to these pleasures and we remember what we felt in Gods presence and the contrast brings us to love Him. The separation from Him becomes a pain of longing for a lost love. This is why Paradise is now called Purgatory because there we are gently purged of all our love of everything else but God Himself. We fulfill our purpose when we are finally there. Over the eons everyone will come to repentance and stand in the presence of God worshipping Him, even the Satan himself will kneel before God in love and joy  one day. 

When God created time/space, there was no 'before', except for Heaven which may have existed prior to this universe; maybe from prior universes, maybe it is an eternal manifestation of Gods for those who love Him. I have no idea; one is as plausible as the other. With String Theory and trans-dimensional theory, Heaven should no longer be considered an irrational concept.

God made everything in our universe in one event. All that exists exists as it is because of how God made that initial creation. He may have tweaked some thing here and there, a miracle occasionally, but the vast majority of Gods interaction is in the form of providence and less the miraculous. God has used the processes being discovered by science to create this material universe. The book of Revelations seems to imply, from its descriptions of a wild variety of being worshipping God, that there have been or maybe are still now other universes besides this one.

That answer your question? It isn't orthodox, but it does not contradict scripture or catholic dogma either.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > He thinks that irritating Christians somehow validates his existence, but really the truth is numan isn't really capable of grasping your points, so why bother?
> ...



You might be right. He could be projecting his own behavior as a norm and onto you as well and he may think it justified.


So far I have not had a problem with him so much.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > He thinks that irritating Christians somehow validates his existence, but really the truth is numan isn't really capable of grasping your points, so why bother?
> ...



 Oh dear, big bad DT is beating up poor widdle Boss again.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> "Blessed are the pure of mind for they shall see God."




this is an example of an authenticity from Antiquity interwoven within the X-Bible that is a truism for the revelation of life and a key for those proposing to reach the apex of knowledge and admittance through Remission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting.

the stupidity of the Spiritualist, Christians etc not to define their interpretation as they have suggested of the existence of both negative and positive states within the spiritual world completely negates their ability to claim a definitive proof of God's existence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



eat shit bitch


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > "Blessed are the pure of mind for they shall see God."
> ...



OK. No surprise here that one can find authenticity in the Bible, but what the hell is an X-Bible?



BreezeWood said:


> the stupidity of the Spiritualist, Christians etc not to define their interpretation as they have suggested of the existence of both negative and positive states within the spiritual world completely negates their ability to claim a definitive proof of God's existence.



Lol, have you ever read Aquinas?  The existance of negative and positive spiritual states is entirely related to the individual submitting themselves to God. To the degree that they do not, it is evil, to the degree that they do, it is good. And though evil is a state, it is not a thing with substance like Good is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



 you have some nerve carrying on this charade.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

numan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



So do you ever post anything that is not the equivalent of a jumping monkey hurling shit out of his ass?


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Haha, is THAT what you think is happening here, Dorito? That you are "beating" me?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you understand pigmentation ? Do you understand a human is a human ? Did you know Job was asian. Have you ever heard of Black Hebrews ?

ASIATIC BLACK HEBREWS - Shomrey Ha'Torah

The color of your skin does not matter to God does it to you ?

Once again you choke on your theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Finally catching on, you're a fraud.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Jim, you come across as a normal reasonable person who understands that not everyone believes as you do. Furthermore yours truly is more than willing to defend your right to your beliefs. 

On the other hand Boss is attempting to claim something that defies all logic, facts, reason and common sense. When challenged with logic, reason, facts and common sense he starts screaming that these challenges are purely motivated by a "hatred" for "religion". His irrational responses have resulted in him attracting attention that his OP probably doesn't deserve. In many respects he is his own worst enemy but that fact seems to escape him too. Boss is entitled to his own beliefs but not his own unsubstantiated "truthiness" and "factoids".

One more point. This is a message board and people are free to express themselves as they see fit within the bounds established by the moderators and admins. The impressions that others form are based entirely upon what is posted. Given that Boss resorts to crude insults while claiming to be an adherent of Spiritualism gives lie to his own posts. This dichotomy seems to be beyond his grasp.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That was just mocking you for your puerile attempt to gain some undeserved sympathy by mischaracterizing others. No one could possibly beat you more than you beat yourself, Boss. Your appetite for self abuse is only equaled by your endless self pity.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...



The concept of a cyclical universe with multiple big bangs is now gaining more and more credence amongst reputable scientists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cyclical+universe+multiple+big+bangs&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS438US513&oq=cyclical+universe+multiple+big+bangs&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.12475j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Our current time did begin with the big bang. However the existence of matter and energy preceded the big bang since the singularity was all matter and energy in the universe compressed into a single object.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...



More profound ignorance from the Boss. Needless to say you are incapable of substantiating either of those mindless allegations with hard scientific facts from reputable sources.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Quite the opposite. A "created" universe is improbable whereas an infinitely existing universe is both logical and fully conforms to the law of conservation of mass.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


another fine example of christian charity ..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



They just don't know.

3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | DiscoverMagazine.com


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it's not a charade it takes no nerve at all ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well let's feel sorry for daws.

Before you attempt a response you start it with an insult Mr. Slapdick.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


as always wrong..jb suffers from the same delusional mind set as you do.
he hasn't said any thing you haven't said and it's obvious you're talking out your ass.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That is right a person would have to possess integrity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

Daws one lie begets another lie have you not learned that yet ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



1. Matter cannot create matter. 
2. Show anything in the universe you believe will never end.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Signatures must be limited to the equivalent of 10 lines standard size type including spacing.
> No Advertising or Soliciting in signatures.





words of wisdom?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


skin color is just a part of the cosmetic differences between humans ..the bible never mentions Asians or native Americans or Caucasians.  yes I v'e heard of black Hebrews  but again that has no bearing on the nonsense you're spewing ...
the traits were call race in humans took millions of years to develop they are not the whim of a god..and the did not happen after a fantasy flood...
btw there is no mention in the bible or any where else that job was anything other the a middle easterner of possibly north African.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Quite the opposite. A "created" universe is *improbable* whereas an infinitely existing universe is both logical and fully conforms to the law of conservation of mass.



Wow.... we've actually witnessed progress! 

Before, it was ridiculous, absurd, nonsensical, and quite impossible... now it's only "improbable?" That is a major step for monkeys like Dorito.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


even your mockery sucks slapdick..
always you're wrong


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


having none how would you know?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


and none even hint at at designer or creationism ..love it when you debunk your self!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your answer proves my statement true.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws one lie begets another lie have you not learned that yet ?


yes that's why it's entertaining to watch you spin them...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Quite the opposite. A "created" universe is *improbable* whereas an infinitely existing universe is both logical and fully conforms to the law of conservation of mass.
> ...


it's all still those things he's just adding to the list..


----------



## Hollie (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Poor daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Really ? that is the best response you can provide


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Well they know the current theory is absurd they have to come up with another one lol. Didn't I tell you the Big Bang creates to many problems for naturalists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I have already proven you're a lying shit stain you want more ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Daws ,no one really cares what you think after your attempt at covering up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 13, 2013)

I smell another Troll that just likes attacking believers.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I smell another Troll that just likes attacking believers.



As noted previously, sweetie, I've posted on other boards. 

Now run along to Harun Yahya and steal some material.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another failed attempt at mockery from slapdick


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


having none how would you know?
you have neither a response or integrity.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another willful misinterpretation..guess you think might is actual ....like you actually think dinosaurs and humans lived together.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


sure you've proven nothing so more of nothing is still nothing


----------



## daws101 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 that's right no cares about your attempt to uncover a non existent cover up. 
you're really sounding like a jilted girlfriend..


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Signatures must be limited to the equivalent of 10 lines standard size type including spacing.
> ...



lol,  no just too busy to change it yet. sigs are not that important to me


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't know, you both seem fairly reasonable to me, but the style these days is to read your opponent and interpret what he says in sort of a Chick Tract manner, taking things at their worst possible meaning.

In short, I think you two may be talking past each other using the same words but with entirely different meanings to yourselves that the other isn't getting.

All I can say is how people come across to me, and neither of you seem irrational. But then again I have not even tried to read the whole thread, not at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I have read different ideas on what actually existed at time point ZERO. Some seem to think that there was nothing prior to ZERO, some say it was there before but only sprang into existence in an instant. Some say Membranes of an interdimensional region 'touched' (whatever that actually means) and caused the Big Bang.

All I know is this: no matter how many iterations of time you use, whether linear, circular or spiral or whatever, an infinite number of finite periods of time cannot have preceded the present. It is as impossible as counting to and down from an infinite value. Cant happen. This fact is not of the Xeno paradox sort in that no time is reduced in parallel to with distance, etc. This infinite limit is simply a mathematical fact.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



My point is that an infinitely old universe is impossible due to the nature of infinite limits. They can be approached but never reached. Infinitely distant limits from the negative side are impossible to derive from as there is no starting point.

The conservation of mass is not infringed by creation since it comes from an infinite source of energy.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



There is nothing before the 'first' thing. There is no limit to the matter/energy that can come from an infinitely powerful being. God exists outside of time, therefore nothing exists before Him.



Hollie said:


> You confuse the Big Bang theory with prior non-existence. This is a tactic of religionists as it gives them a window whereby a supernatural &#8220;belch&#8221;, and their gawds have magically *_poofed_* all of existence into being.



Since the Big Bang has been fairly well described by science via normal natural processes, there is nothing 'magical' about it.

You atheists like to keep using the word 'magical' as some kind of pejorative, but you misuse it so much, I don't think very many of you actually knows what it means.



Hollie said:


> The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang.
> 
> This barrier to observation is sometimes known as Planck's Wall. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> ...



It may be logical but it is not SCIENTIFIC because you cannot test it.

And whether there was some materialistic pre-existence or not, eventually the flow of time has to have a beginning point.



Hollie said:


> Ironically, the argument that because we cannot see it, it does not exist, is an argument for the non-existence of any gawds.



lol, you do not understand what the term 'eternal' means if you think that the nonexistence of energy/matter prior to the Big Bang is an argument against an infinite eternal interdimensional being.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I skip over most of his shit now; waste of time.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god. Matter doesn't create matter, spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe. There is no special reason such a force would require creation itself. This is a strawman argument, generally thrown out by disbelievers. You see... *you are now arguing that the physically non-existent spiritually entity can't be real, or it would have to at some point, been physically created.* Do you see the flaw here? *When we speak of something being created, we mean a physical creation of something,* and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.




*Boss: But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god* - spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe - and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe. 


*"spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe"*


really, without lifting a finger

oh, and is there any reasoning behind what is created, are you speaking of life forms as well.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 13, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK. No surprise here that one can find authenticity in the Bible, but what the hell is an X-Bible?



an indication of the tragic misrepresentation of Antiquity by the Judea / Christian religions through their obfuscation of religious text.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > But I have made no argument for any specific kind of god. Matter doesn't create matter, spiritual energy creates matter from elements we find across the universe. There is no special reason such a force would require creation itself. This is a strawman argument, generally thrown out by disbelievers. You see... *you are now arguing that the physically non-existent spiritually entity can't be real, or it would have to at some point, been physically created.* Do you see the flaw here? *When we speak of something being created, we mean a physical creation of something,* and spiritual energy doesn't physically exist. It doesn't require physical creation, it is just there and always has been. Even before the physical universe.
> ...



Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy? 

...Yes, without lifting a physical finger which spiritual entities don't have.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 13, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




How can anything without reasoning ability create intelligently?


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2013)

> Jim, you come across as a normal reasonable person who understands that not everyone believes as you do. Furthermore yours truly is more than willing to defend your right to your beliefs.
> 
> On the other hand Boss is attempting to claim something that defies all logic, facts, reason and common sense. When challenged with logic, reason, facts and common sense he starts screaming that these challenges are purely motivated by a "hatred" for "religion". His irrational responses have resulted in him attracting attention that his OP probably doesn't deserve. In many respects he is his own worst enemy but that fact seems to escape him too. Boss is entitled to his own beliefs but not his own unsubstantiated "truthiness" and "factoids".



I've repeatedly shown where your explanations for humans spirituality defy science, nature and logic. Where your explanations for its persistence as our most defining attribute, defies Darwin's own theories. How you have absolutely NO science to support your argument that spiritual nature is non existent. 

I have never tried to entitle myself to my own facts. That is what you and the disbelievers want to do. You want to claim that it has been somehow 'proven' that spiritual nature doesn't exist, and those who believe it does, are refusing to accept science. You won't show us any scientific evidence to support your claims, you just keep acting as if this is common knowledge you need not support, while challenging others to present science to refute your views. Furthermore, you illogically demand the evidence for a spiritual entity be solely physical evidence, which spiritual entities do not provide, since they are spiritual and not physical. 

Contrary to your claims, I admitted in the first two paragraphs of the OP, that some people are incapable of acknowledging spiritual nature, and this question can never be answered for them. I do not demand that you believe the same as myself or agree with me, I go out of my way to point out that you don't, and won't ever. Still, you people go on for page after page, trying to argue a point that you can never make, and know that you'll never make, seeking an answer that you can never find, and know you will never find. When I point out why I think you do this irrational thing, you get angry... probably because I am right... and start attacking me for that as well. 

I've been around message boards for years. I've pissed off many people to this degree, it's not new to me. _*Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?*_ was my creation, and the title as well as the argument, is designed to provoke thought and challenge conventional wisdoms. I fully intended for you to become engaged in the conversation, intentionally provoked you, as a matter of fact. I knew that you, and other religion-haters, would not be able to resist such a title and argument, you'd have to entertain us with your thoughts. I admit, I had no idea it would be this popular. 

Now, the thread has grown to 75 pages, and I suspect it will continue to grow, and although every refutation of the OP offered up, has been shown to defy nature, science, and logic, you have decided to 'win the argument' by claiming you won the argument long ago, and I am merely sticking around to be kicked about during your victory lap. There are no quotes posted by me, contradicted by you, so those aren't being proudly paraded around... something you normally do on such a victory lap. But that's okay, there are enough of your 'friends' here to slap you on the back and make you think this was pulled off. 

I've seen this movie plenty of times.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK. No surprise here that one can find authenticity in the Bible, but what the hell is an X-Bible?
> ...



That didn't really answer my question


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Well, because it resides in a different realm than physical nature, certainly! 
Here again, we run into a problem with how you comprehend the terms of the argument and how those who believe in spiritual nature comprehend those same terms. The only concept of rationality you have, is physical, from the physical realm. The spiritual realm is simply not confined to physical rationale. Yep... it's a pretty far out thing to try and wrap your mind around, I agree... that's precisely why man developed religions. 

I didn't say that the intelligent designer was a physical entity living on a cloud with angels and a harp. That's quite mad, in my opinion. I believe spiritual energy created the physical universe, because physical energy did not yet exist. I see far too much circumstance which had to work out is specific ways, to specific degrees, and in specific timing to even enable the simplest scientific explanations for origin of life. Even if all of life sprang forth from a single cell organism, it came from spiritual energy. The evidence for an intelligent designer is order to the universe. The WHY behind the HOW in science. 

Now... "intelligent designer" means different things to different people. To you, it means an individual expressing creative imagination, rationalizing and planning through a process, as humans do in the physical universe. But the spiritual universe is quite different. It does not have to conform to rules of the physical universe, and it doesn't. You can chortle that this is "convenient" but it's just the truth. It's why this question can't ever be answered for you. The ability to comprehend spiritual nature doesn't exist in your mind, it's not there. At every turn of the investigation, you mistakenly apply physical science and physical limitation on spiritual energy and spiritual existence. This causes you to draw completely illogical conclusions, which serve to support your disbelief.


----------



## flowery (Jun 14, 2013)

.

*cure 4 Atheism*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0QX6h2nBl4]cure 4 Atheism [Part 1/5] - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51tfYQ9-GEs]cure 4 Atheism [Part 2/5]. - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47oWDPzI-q4]cure 4 Atheism [Part 3/5]. - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26hqVvSIQlI]cure 4 Atheism [Part 4/5] - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdhMkFkTnnQ]cure 4 Atheism [part 5/5].Yusuf Estes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Infinity is not a mathematical value. It is a concept. The mathematical limitations of calculus do not apply to time or matter. 


> The conservation of mass is not infringed by creation since it comes from an infinite source of energy.



Your premise rests upon an assumption that there is "an infinite source of energy" which begs the question as to what "created" that source in the first place. An infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist does not need any such assumptions and is in full compliance with the conservation of mass.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



1. Only believers are obsessed with the concept of "creation". The rest of us have moved beyond such infantile obsessions.

2. Rampant ignorance and blatant stupidity seems like a good candidate.  Do you have even the vaguest clue what the law of conservation of mass means?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your promotion of religion under the guise of spirit worlds is no less a religion. Your appeals to spirit worlds carries with it most of the components of typical religious dogma. You have replaced a named gawd(s) with something you call "spiritual nature", yet this "spiritual nature" thing Is indistinguishable from the typical configurations of most deities.

Conveniently, you even configure your spirit worlds as absent any verifiable proofs, rational standards and physical existence, just as others have done in the formulation of their religions, ruled over by supernatural entities. In order to assess and access your spirit worlds, we must abandon any standard of rationality and reason. We must blindly accept your claims as true and inerrant, beyond any reasonable standard of proof.

Well, yeah, that is a bit difficult to wrap ones head around...  because thinking humans can choose to reject such ridiculous "because I say so", nonsense.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That is not what is being proposed. There is only a single infinite universe of space/time. The period of time that we are counting from the current big bang is meaningless as far as the universe is concerned. It is an entirely arbitrary limitation that we are using from our own myopic perspective. The universe has always existed and while it constantly changes form it has no limitations as far as time is concerned.


----------



## flowery (Jun 14, 2013)

.



Big bang theory in the Qur'an- 
atheists must see!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3O5H_bn4M]sheikh ahmed deedat-big bang theory in the glorious quran- atheists must see! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flowery (Jun 14, 2013)

.



Scientific Proof that God exists - - Ahmed Deedat

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1OyOfraTqk]Scientific Proof that God exists - Big Bang Theory - Ahmed Deedat - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## hobelim (Jun 14, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy?
> ...





You missed the point. The ability to create intelligently requires a reasoning ability.





Boss said:


> Well, because it resides in a different realm than physical nature, certainly!
> Here again, we run into a problem with how you comprehend the terms of the argument and how those who believe in spiritual nature comprehend those same terms. The only concept of rationality you have, is physical, from the physical realm. The spiritual realm is simply not confined to physical rationale. Yep... it's a pretty far out thing to try and wrap your mind around, I agree... that's precisely why man developed religions. .




You are wrong. I understand what you consider to be  spiritual nature nothing more than a capacity of the mind, like dreaming or imagination, that exists within  the realm of conscious thought, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the physical realm.






Boss said:


> I didn't say that the intelligent designer was a physical entity living on a cloud with angels and a harp. That's quite mad, in my opinion. I believe spiritual energy created the physical universe, because physical energy did not yet exist. I see far too much circumstance which had to work out is specific ways, to specific degrees, and in specific timing to even enable the simplest scientific explanations for origin of life. Even if all of life sprang forth from a single cell organism, it came from spiritual energy. The evidence for an intelligent designer is order to the universe. The WHY behind the HOW in science. .




Hey, I just pointed out that the ability to create intelligently requires a reasoning ability.
pay attention.





Boss said:


> Now... "intelligent designer" means different things to different people. To you, it means an individual expressing creative imagination, rationalizing and planning through a process, as humans do in the physical universe. But the spiritual universe is quite different. It does not have to conform to rules of the physical universe, and it doesn't. You can chortle that this is "convenient" but it's just the truth. It's why this question can't ever be answered for you. The ability to comprehend spiritual nature doesn't exist in your mind, it's not there. At every turn of the investigation, you mistakenly apply physical science and physical limitation on spiritual energy and spiritual existence. This causes you to draw completely illogical conclusions, which serve to support your disbelief.





No, I just pointed out that the ability to create intelligently requires a reasoning ability and instead of agreeing you went on a trip to outer space to avoid the embarrassment of acknowledging that you are wrong.

Are you trying to make me laugh or feel sorry for you?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I need to do the same.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Now... "intelligent designer" means different things to different people. To you, it means an individual expressing creative imagination, rationalizing and planning through a process, as humans do in the physical universe. But the spiritual universe is quite different. It does not have to conform to rules of the physical universe, and it doesn't. You can chortle that this is "convenient" but it's just the truth. It's why this question can't ever be answered for you. The ability to comprehend spiritual nature doesn't exist in your mind, it's not there. At every turn of the investigation, you mistakenly apply physical science and physical limitation on spiritual energy and spiritual existence. This causes you to draw completely illogical conclusions, which serve to support your disbelief.



Ok, so wait. This is getting stranger by the minute. So you're claiming that there is a separate and distinct "spiritual universe"?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Jim, you come across as a normal reasonable person who understands that not everyone believes as you do. Furthermore yours truly is more than willing to defend your right to your beliefs.
> >
> > On the other hand Boss is attempting to claim something that defies all logic, facts, reason and common sense. When challenged with logic, reason, facts and common sense he starts screaming that these challenges are purely motivated by a "hatred" for "religion". His irrational responses have resulted in him attracting attention that his OP probably doesn't deserve. In many respects he is his own worst enemy but that fact seems to escape him too. Boss is entitled to his own beliefs but not his own unsubstantiated "truthiness" and "factoids".
> 
> ...



So now Boss is admitting that he is incapable of learning from his past mistakes. Only a fool keeps on repeating the same mistake while expecting a different outcome each time.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

flowery said:


> .
> 
> *cure 4 Atheism*
> 
> ...


major waste of bandwidth....


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



First of all, what I have suggested is not a religion. You simply want to dismiss all spiritual belief as a religion, and I understand why. I didn't configure spiritual nature, it existed before I did, it existed before physical nature did. It doesn't exist 'because I say so.' It is indeed verifiable and provable, and I can even show you how, if you are willing to open your mind. It doesn't require abandoning rationality or reason at all, spirituality is a perfectly natural human behavioral state.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



That was an understatement. No self respecting person would ever allow themselves to be talked down to in such a condescending manner. As for the content, there are kids in elementary schools who could poke holes in that nonsense.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

hobelim said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Prove your statement true, or stop making it. We can say, from what we know of intelligent physical entities, they require reasoning to create intelligently. I have no problem with that statement, but that isn't what you said. 



> You are wrong. I understand what you consider to be  spiritual nature nothing more than a capacity of the mind, like dreaming or imagination, that exists within  the realm of conscious thought, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the physical realm.



Again, if you are going to make a declarative statement, you need to prove it. Your understanding of something, does not make you correct and others wrong. Although, this is getting to be common in this thread. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say that the intelligent designer was a physical entity living on a cloud with angels and a harp. That's quite mad, in my opinion. I believe spiritual energy created the physical universe, because physical energy did not yet exist. I see far too much circumstance which had to work out is specific ways, to specific degrees, and in specific timing to even enable the simplest scientific explanations for origin of life. Even if all of life sprang forth from a single cell organism, it came from spiritual energy. The evidence for an intelligent designer is order to the universe. The WHY behind the HOW in science. .
> ...



Pay attention, you presented your OPINION and didn't back it up with anything at all. Until you can prove your opinion true, it is subject to whether or not I have faith in it. I don't.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now... "intelligent designer" means different things to different people. To you, it means an individual expressing creative imagination, rationalizing and planning through a process, as humans do in the physical universe. But the spiritual universe is quite different. It does not have to conform to rules of the physical universe, and it doesn't. You can chortle that this is "convenient" but it's just the truth. It's why this question can't ever be answered for you. The ability to comprehend spiritual nature doesn't exist in your mind, it's not there. At every turn of the investigation, you mistakenly apply physical science and physical limitation on spiritual energy and spiritual existence. This causes you to draw completely illogical conclusions, which serve to support your disbelief.
> ...



You didn't point anything out, you gave your opinion on something, and offered nothing at all to support your opinion, and now you are acting as if your opinion was established as a fact that can't be refuted. 



> Are you trying to make me laugh or feel sorry for you?



I'm trying to get you to understand that your opinions are not facts, but you are being rather hard headed about this. Seems you think, whenever you have bestowed your profound opinions, we are not to question them or ask for proof.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...



But we notice, Dorito doesn't attempt to poke holes in anything, proving he is not as smart as a typical elementary school kid, by his own admission.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What you're requiring of me is precisely the requirement that religions require: that I "believe" you. According to you, I must 'open my mind", to accept your assertions. What dies that mean, to "open my mind"? This is why your claims are phony. 

I don't need to "open my mind" to understand the natural world. I can experience the natural, rational world around me. If I need explanations for the effects of gravity or what causes a lunar eclipse, I can research peer reviewed science journals and get the consensus of those who research the phenomenon. There is no requirement to "open my mind" to science as there is for your spirit worlds and other such claims which are asserted but carry a requirement to "believe", absent reliable corroboration. 

Save "belief" for Sunday school. In the natural, rational world, facts have a way trumping "belief".


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


who's we? 
hmmmmm. your "evidence" is subjective , so any hole poking would be also..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


me thinks that "opening you mind is a badly thought out euphemism for disregarding objectivity or any  analytically derived fact.
but that's just me.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You can't logically explain creation without creation. Testable evidence shows, whenever there is a "big bang" things are disorganized and chaotic as a result, they don't find order and pattern. Testable evidence also shows, whenever there is a "big bang" there has to be an energy source responsible. Testable evidence shows that physical matter is unable to create physical matter. (laws of conservation of mass)

Do you exist? Seriously, answer that question! If we can conclude you do exist, then you must be the product of creation. You obviously haven't existed forever, and you won't exist indefinitely. The state of your matter changed from inorganic to organic, and will again change to inorganic. Spiritual nature is what causes inorganic matter to become organic. 

You don't have to agree with this, you can continue to believe that physical mass created itself through an unexplained explosion, and this cataclysm resulted in harmonious order and predictable physics across the universe. That is more of a 'miracle' than any god ever conceived.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/wHjsaEK4vnw]Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Wake (Jun 14, 2013)

There are some things that raise a lot of questions. I'm neither religious, agnostic, or atheistic.... just indifferent and curious.

If you're religious, you have a LOT of philosophical things to contend with. How do you reckon the possible existence of other gods, when you've set your heart on a certain deity? How can you prove your god exists? How do you know you're truly on the path of salvation? The whole issue with religion is that you can't _know_. You have to have faith. If God intended people to have unrefutable evidence of his existence and mandates, well, there wouldn't be any need for faith. If God wants us to have faith, He wouldn't provide ground-breaking proof that He exists.

If you're atheistic, there's a lot of things you have to work with, too. Do you just not believe and continue life randomly and pointlessly on a rock in space? How do you explain the origins of life? If you are an atheist, do youbelieve in abiogenesis? If human came from ape-like things, and they came from scurrying things and so on and so forth backwards in time, what was before the first living thing? Can a living thing pop into existence? Can it come from a chemical reaction? It doesn't make sense. If life can't come from rocks and other materials... how'd it get here?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nor do the others yammering about it but that is typical.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...






> Now to the "definitive proof" part. *Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence*, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient *people of Lake Mungo*, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. *This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality.* We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something *greater than self.* Since our very origins.





*... greater than self.*



> *Boss:* Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability in order to create intelligently or exist as spiritual energy?




(Boss) - - - > greater than self - Since when do I need to prove something has reasoning ability ...


ok Boss, then maybe the people of Lake Mungo were Neanderthals ....


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't require you to believe me. However, you must have faith and belief in anything, including science, in order to accept it and believe in it. I posed the question earlier: Do you believe gravity will behave on Earth tomorrow, as it behaves on Earth today? Most will say, yes! This is because the evidence is strong, gravity has behaved in a predictable way up until today, therefore, it is rational to presume it will behave the same tomorrow... but we can't ever absolutely "prove" it will. We have faith it will. 

Science is nothing more than theory of probability and predictability. Earlier, I presented the question asked by Theoretical Physicist, Dr. Michio Kaku, to his new students; *Calculate the possibility that your body will disintegrate and re-materialize on the other side of a brick wall. *  Now, you are a smart person who puts all you faith and hope in science and the scientific method... do you have a calculation? Believe it or not, there is an actual calculation, and there is this possibility. Kaku says you would have to calculate longer than the universe has existed, but the possibility does indeed exist and is calculable.

What you and others continue to do, is dismiss spiritual nature on the grounds that it doesn't seem to conform to physical nature, or limits/requirements on physical nature. The flaw is simple, spiritual nature is not physical nature, it is entirely different. It's kind of like saying water can't possibly contain oxygen because we obviously can't breathe it. You are applying a criteria to oxygen that it doesn't have to meet to exist.  

You can have all the understanding in the world, of science and physical nature... your science can never explain the WHY, just the HOW part. I stated in the OP, that certain things we are aware of, don't really have a "physical" presence we can put our finger on... like "talent." We can certainly measure brain wave activity and see that the brain is functioning or in thought, and we can detect chemical reactions happening and neurons firing, etc. But what made Mozart's neurons fire differently? Chance? I know through science, how friction causes atoms to become electrically charged, producing electricity... but can you explain why that happens? Of course not, because all science breaks down to basic physical laws and principles we accept as part of reality in a physical universe. Did all of this assimilation of order just happen by randomness and chance? 

Now I personally dig science, I think it's wonderful and great, and probably the best thing that has ever come from human spiritual understanding. It helps us to see (sometimes) how the miracles of spiritual nature work. But this constant using it to try and defy spiritual nature, is laughable to me. It's as if you have discovered a working computer on the beach... and you've chosen to believe it exists because of random chances which all fell into place and created the computer there on the beach. Others suggest it was intelligently designed, but you demand evidence and proof. As you dig into the guts, you find a CPU... Ah-ha! You see... there is the "answer" the CPU surely created the computer through evolution! No intelligent designer needed! Yeah, because... the silicone is natural and available in nature... and heavy metals... and they just happened to wash up on the beach in the right combo, along with a bolt of lightning which electrically charged the CPU and brought it to life, and from there... natural selection, baby! 

I thought the Muslim guy in the video posted earlier, made an interesting observation about the universe. Isn't it curious, we find atoms, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos. This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos? 

Spiritual energy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




Look... my remark was purely a philosophical comment. I did not mean to indicate that I thought spiritual nature was non-reasoning or "irrational" but that spiritual energy need not conform. What we humans have decided to call "rationality" or "reasoning" and "reckoning" are attributes assigned to the process of human thought. Why the hell would a spiritual entity need or require human attributes? The fact that we can't conceive how intelligence can exist without reasoning, doesn't mean that it doesn't. Perhaps this is yet another area where our semantics are confused, depending on your understanding of spiritual nature, or lack thereof? We know what "intelligence" is, as it relates to human beings in a physical universe. That's all we know, because we are incapable of relating to a realm we aren't physically aware of, and certainly if we aren't willing to open our minds to. 

I find this is the biggest error made by the disbelievers. They constantly want to apply physical science, laws of physics and physical nature, and preconceptions of thought and words pertaining to physical reality, to the spiritual nature. I think that we can ALL agree, spiritual nature doesn't physically exist. Why would the rules and concepts behind physical nature, have anything at all to do with spiritual nature? ...Other than, to prove that spiritual nature is intelligent in the designing of physical nature itself?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yet another mindless noise response devoid of all hard facts. We have all come to expect your creationist kneejerk obtuseness. Have a nice day.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sheesh. That was quite an impassioned plea but unfortunately, totally wrong.

These "spiritual energy" claims of yours which you promote as some engine for the creation of "patterns" is totally bogus.

Firstly, where is this "order" you see in the universe? It doesn't exist. Have you realized that photos of planetary objects in this solar system depict objects that are pock-marked with craters? Why do you think that Is?

Have you ever heard of Shoemaker-Levy?    How about a minor event on this planet 65 million years ago? 

The fact is, the universe is a place hostile to life and unforgiving of "patterns".  There is planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc.  Galaxies collide, stars exhaust their fuel and explode in emission of energy that is "cosmic" in scale which obliterates other space objects. Black holes consume entire portions of space. Space objects collide and are reduced to dust. There are also huge areas of the cosmos which are empty and other areas relatively dense with planets, stars, etc. 

This "order" you see is a function of your religious bias. We live in Hunan time frames, not geologic time frames, thus we are spared experiencing the chaos of the universe.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

> Yet another mindless noise response devoid of all hard facts. We have all come to expect your creationist kneejerk obtuseness. Have a nice day.



It appears your "hard facts" are your opinions. This is based on the obvious lack of presentation on your part, of anything approaching a "hard fact" or "fact" of any type, for that matter. We are entertained with yet another barrage of hate-filled ridicule and name-calling, intertwined with mass doses of your intellectual opinion. Then we get a layer of lies and distortions, along with another dose of insults and opinion. Page after page, you have repeated this process, and it's just not working for you. Of course, your buddies are all here to cheer you on, and reassure you that you are "winning" the debate, but you haven't even started debating. No evidence has been presented on your part, it's all rhetorical opinion, most of which is adequately debunked with basic logic and common sense. 

I'm not sure how long you have been debating on message boards, and perhaps this is the strategy you find most effective at "winning" a debate; to demagogue your opponent and filibuster the thread with nonsensical opinions and lies until he simply throws up his hands in frustration and leaves? But I can assure you, this tactic isn't going to work on me. I will continue to expose you as someone who has presented no evidence to support your opinions, and a habitual liar.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 14, 2013)

I am sure agnostic/atheist have prayed at least once in their lives. I have a time or two. I am sure just as many theists have cursed god under their breath and doubted the whole shebang. Would they be that honest? Admit it.  Such a simple thing, you doubt for a second that religion makes any sense.  Just for a second. Dont give me that devil stuff. We humans are all about doubt.  Only an idiot or a animal doesnt doubt.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...





Stop the horseshit. The very definition of intelligence includes the ability to reason.

There is nothing for me to prove.




.





Boss said:


> [........I'm trying to get you to understand that your opinions are not facts, but you are being rather hard headed about this. Seems you think, whenever you have bestowed your profound opinions, we are not to question them or ask for proof.



Again it is not my opinion that the ability to reason is foundational to intelligence.

by that standard you are not very bright.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Sheesh. That was quite an impassioned plea but unfortunately, totally wrong.



Let it be noted that Hollie has the OPINION that I am wrong, and has offered NO evidence to support said opinion. I presume this means "because I say so?" 



> These "spiritual energy" claims of yours which you promote as some engine for the creation of "patterns" is totally bogus.
> 
> Firstly, where is this "order" you see in the universe? It doesn't exist.



Sure it does. You created an entire science around this, it's called "Physics." Are you trying to claim the speed of light is random, or things in the universe are totally unpredictable? If not, then there IS order. 



> Have you realized that photos of planetary objects in this solar system depict objects that are pock-marked with craters? Why do you think that Is?



It's largely due to atmosphere. Our special planet happens to have an atmosphere with layers of protection against radiation and ultraviolet rays, as well as many asteroids and meteors, which burn up as they enter the atmosphere. It's almost as if whatever force enabled life, also enabled an atmosphere to protect life, as if it were intelligently designed this way. 



> Have you ever heard of Shoemaker-Levy?    How about a minor event on this planet 65 million years ago?



Now you are trying to claim there is no order in the universe because random collisions happen. Of course, we knew when Shoemaker-Levy would impact, we watched it happen after our predicting it. According to your theory of non-order, this would have been random, it may have happened, and it may not have happened, depending on chance. Since we know physics and can rely on order and logic, we were able to predict this event would indeed happen, and we were correct. 



> The fact is, the universe is a place hostile to life and unforgiving of "patterns".  There is planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc.  Galaxies collide, stars exhaust their fuel and explode in emission of energy that is "cosmic" in scale which obliterates other space objects. Black holes consume entire portions of space. Space objects collide and are reduced to dust. There are also huge areas of the cosmos which are empty and other areas relatively dense with planets, stars, etc.



Yet we find "pattern" all over the universe. We also find "order" and "logic," and all of it is the result of spiritual nature which we cannot see or physically confirm. 



> This "order" you see is a function of your religious bias. We live in Hunan time frames, not geologic time frames, thus we are spared experiencing the chaos of the universe.



No, the order I see in the physical universe, is proof to me that a spiritual nature exists and is responsible for it, because random chance doesn't produce such results in any testable circumstance. 

We live in human time frames, we also live in human conception of reality. Our arrogance as intellectual life forms, often results in our assumptions which happen to be false. This is as true for science as it is for religion, it's part of human nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh. That was quite an impassioned plea but unfortunately, totally wrong.
> ...



Hmm, do I really exist ?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Isn't it curious, we find *atoms*, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they *are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons.* Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. *Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos.* This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?
> 
> Spiritual energy.


And this scientific ignoramus claims to be a MOLECULAR biologist.  Before you can understand the structure of a molecule, you must understand the structure of the atom, especially the electrons which are the key to how atoms combine into molecules. This idiot thinks protons and neutrons are in orbit! 

Atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons do not orbit an atom, they make up the nucleus of an atom. Electrons orbit the nucleus.

The universe IS chaotic!!! Something in the universe is smashing into something else constantly. The universe is a Perpetual Commotion Machine.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



You mean the definition of human intelligence? Again, I do not argue that spiritual gods have, need, or require, human intelligence. What you need to prove, is that a spiritual entity would require ability to reason, in order to display intelligence in creation. Since you do not believe spiritual entities exist, and you don't comprehend spiritual existence or spiritual nature, it is impossible for you to prove this. You can rely on definitions pertaining to physical concepts, but spiritual nature doesn't conform to them. 

Perhaps this is a good place to note, when I am using the words "intelligent designer" I am not using them in context of 'physical nature' understandings. What you comprehend as "intelligent" is not necessarily what I mean in context of "spiritual intelligence." There is just not another word in our vocabulary to adequately describe it here. We see "intelligence" as the product of rational thought, but a spiritual energy or entity, doesn't require thought, it already has the knowledge...doesn't need to rationalize it or think about it, as humans in a physical universe. 



> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, you are arguing a point on the basis of physical reasoning, not spiritual. It is indeed your opinion that all physical examples of intelligence we are aware of, has the ability to reason, which is what makes it intelligence. I agree with this completely, but that wasn't the argument. Spiritual nature does not have to conform to physical rationale, and most often, it simply doesn't. While we can only comprehend intelligence as something that requires rational ability to reason, that doesn't mean this is the only way intelligence can exist in a spiritual sense. We continue to run into the same exact problem, over and over again, your inability to open your mind to spiritual nature and it's presence in our universe.

You also seem to like jumping to conclusions, and pretending your perceptions are factual. _It's preposterous that intelligence without ability to reason can exist...nonsense..._ yet you have offered no proof that it doesn't. This is an assumption you have made, and then closed your mind to anything which challenges that assumption. Either through ignorance or stubbornness, you are unable to open your mind to any possibility, other than the conclusions you have drawn.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it curious, we find *atoms*, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they *are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons.* Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. *Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos.* This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?
> ...



Uhm.. I never claimed to be a molecular biologist, I think that was YWC. 

Maybe he can explain the atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons thing better than I? The point is still, from the smallest things to the farthest reaching things, our universe has pattern of design. Now.... Go and blow up ANYTHING... and see what results? 

Pattern or Chaos?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function#Limits_involving_infinity


> Limits can also have infinite values. When infinities are not considered legitimate values, which is standard (but see below), a formalist will insist upon various circumlocutions. For example, rather than say that a limit is infinity, the proper thing is to say that the function "diverges" or "grows without bound"....
> Limits involving infinity are connected with the concept of asymptotes.
> These notions of a limit attempt to provide a metric space interpretation to limits at infinity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity



> Infinity (symbol: &#8734 refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. The English word infinity derives from Latin infinitas, which can be translated as "unboundedness", itself calqued from the Greek word apeiros, meaning "endless".[1]
> 
> In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e., a number greater than any real number. Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities).[2] For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable.[3]






Derideo_Te said:


> It is a concept. The mathematical limitations of calculus do not apply to time or matter.



Of course they do. All mathematical concepts apply in some way to matter and of those that do not appear to (very very few), if historical patterns hold, then eventually some realtion to the material universe will be found for them.



Derideo_Te said:


> > The conservation of mass is not infringed by creation since it comes from an infinite source of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise rests upon an assumption that there is "an infinite source of energy" which begs the question as to what "created" that source in the first place.



You do not seem to grasp the nature of what 'infinite' means. Look at a number line, with the left side progressing toward negative infinity and the right side progressing to positive infinity. There is no point before negative infinity, nor after positive infinity.

Cantor explored these infinite values and infinite sets quite a bit and his set number system is considered essential to modern mathematics, and he firmly believed that his transfinite numbers proved the existence of God at least as a concept.



Derideo_Te said:


> An infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist does not need any such assumptions and is in full compliance with the conservation of mass.



1. We know the universe is not infinite. Any model that is infinite is outside our known universe and as fanciful and nonscientific as any other notion of what might be outside our universe.

2. An infinite universe is still subject to the first moment problem. IF there is no first moment in time, then nothing can follow after to the present. There is nothing for the universe to come after.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The flow of time must have a first moment in time for the simple fact that if there is no first moment in time, then there is nothing for time to come after. If there is no first hour, then there are no hours that follow. If there is no first second, then no seconds can follow.

The universe cannot have always existed. It is impossible.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

MaryL said:


> I am sure agnostic/atheist have prayed at least once in their lives. I have a time or two. I am sure just as many theists have cursed god under their breath and doubted the whole shebang. Would they be that honest? Admit it.  Such a simple thing, you doubt for a second that religion makes any sense.  Just for a second. Dont give me that devil stuff. We humans are all about doubt.  Only an idiot or a animal doesnt doubt.



Mary, here is the thing I think you are confused about... Spiritual nature does indeed exist, and you know that it does, but the thing about admitting it does, lends at least a plausible credibility to religious philosophies you totally disagree with. You have become content enough with yourself as a human being, to seemingly 'abandon' spirituality, in order to do battle against these religious philosophies you despise. I can relate, because I recall a time in my life, where I felt this way as well. It's indeed a frustrating dilemma as a person. 

What you don't yet realize, and I hope one day you will, is that Religion is not Spirituality. Your personal connection to spiritual nature is not dependent on religious beliefs or dogma in any way. Spiritual energy is present, just like electricity, for you to tap into. But of course, if you are some backwoods hillbilly who'd never heard of such things as electricity, and someone came along with it... what use would you possibly have for such hocus pocus? You have to first be able to open your mind to your spiritual self, your spiritual possibilities, your very own spiritual nature. No one on this planet can do that, only you. 

My OP argument attempts to escape the shackles of Religion, to set aside our emotional sentiments toward organized religious beliefs for a moment, and consider human behavior, the fundamentals of human spirituality, our intrinsic connection to something spiritual, how this is our most unique and defining attribute, and most likely responsible for why we are so advanced as a species. I even paid respects to Darwin in my argument, and the scientific method as well. Against the backdrop of "intellectuals" here, I have presented support for my beliefs by people like Aristotle and Plato. Indeed, this question has been pondered by mankind for all our existence, it's not going to be settled in this thread.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


in the same way jock itch does....incessantly.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh. That was quite an impassioned plea but unfortunately, totally wrong.
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not in any meaningful way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it curious, we find *atoms*, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they *are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons.* Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. *Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos.* This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?
> ...



This a good answer that anyone could have googled why don't you give Boss the chance to explain it.

Daws this why you were lying you needed Physics and Biochemistry to understand Rna at the molecular level.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And that point is still wrong because as was pointed out, the universe is chaotic. You are simply pontificating that chaos is a pattern. Blow something up and you set it in motion. The universe is in motion with something colliding into something else due to that chaotic motion. For short periods you might observe some gravitational patterns to the objects in chaotic motion, but the patterns never last. Chaos wins out in the end.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ed had it right.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Parts of the universe can be considered Chaotic but we can set our calendars to other parts of the universe because of it's predictable order So in my opinion it is both.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



YWC also claims to command the French forces at Waterloo.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I am elderly but not that elderly.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Wake said:


> There are some things that raise a lot of questions. I'm neither religious, agnostic, or atheistic.... just indifferent and curious.
> 
> If you're religious, you have a LOT of philosophical things to contend with. How do you reckon the possible existence of other gods, when you've set your heart on a certain deity? How can you prove your god exists? How do you know you're truly on the path of salvation? The whole issue with religion is that you can't _know_. You have to have faith. If God intended people to have unrefutable evidence of his existence and mandates, well, there wouldn't be any need for faith. If God wants us to have faith, He wouldn't provide ground-breaking proof that He exists.
> 
> If you're atheistic, there's a lot of things you have to work with, too. Do you just not believe and continue life randomly and pointlessly on a rock in space? How do you explain the origins of life? If you are an atheist, do youbelieve in abiogenesis? If human came from ape-like things, and they came from scurrying things and so on and so forth backwards in time, what was before the first living thing? Can a living thing pop into existence? Can it come from a chemical reaction? It doesn't make sense. If life can't come from rocks and other materials... how'd it get here?


you bring up a point that makes no sense to me I've heard a lot of believers  say "continue life randomly and pointlessly on a rock in space".
or something close to that.
how does believing in a non provable Deity make life any less random?
the use of the word random :
1. made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
2. 
Statistics.  of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. 

3.
Informal. 
a. 
unknown, unidentified, or out of place: A couple of random guys showed up at the party.  

b. 
odd and unpredictable in an amusing way: my totally random     to describe existence is  a misnomer .
there are random moments in life in the same way there are coincidental moments .
for the most part life is not random.
there are patterns in nature (there is no evidence these patterns  are the product of conscience design) 
time as we experience it seems to have a pattern.
we make or own patterns of behavior.
the only benefit I can see from spiritual belief is it's an organizing force for good or ill.
the same thing can be said about sports,government and the arts.
to make this brief  I think believers use terms like random to appear to have an answer  to the age old question:  what is the meaning of life.  
the reality is "they" are as clueless about that as they claim non believers are.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


since I was not lying it appears the liar is you..
why needlessly mention me in this post? 
still trying to kiss jb's and boss's ass ?
or fruitlessly trying to rebuild your non existent credibility?.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually our calendars have to be adjusted because the "order" is changing as chaos takes over.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


that's only true for now it can and will change.
the universe does not run on your imaginary scheduled.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


he also sees design were it does not exist..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Daws my response needs further explanation lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am not the only one Daws.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


true everyone can see it's meaningless.
except for the you kissing ass section..now that needs no further explanation..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 that has that mental illness.
lots of delusional people see things that aren't there ,you won't be lonely just wrong.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Let it be noted that Boss is befuddled. The fact of a chaotic universe is not in question, as was demonstrated.
> More befuddlement as the speed of light has nothing to do with any bogus claim of order in the universe.



My only befuddlement is how inept you are at language. Are you taking "order" to mean perfect order in all instances? Utopian and absolute? Because, that isn't what I implied at all. The speed of light is constant, it doesn't change randomly by chance, it is reliable... there is order to it. The same with all principles of physics, it has order. We can rely on this order to repeat itself. Nothing in our physical universe is random in reality, it is either there or not there. If it is there, it can be defined predictably and reliably, there is order and logic to it. 



> Yet more religious claims made by Boss in connection with an intelligent Designer. It seems Boss has identified again that he is just an ordinary, pedestrian intelligent design creationist.



Well you can keep calling it a "religious claim" but I am merely observing facts. I explained to you about our amazing atmosphere, which protects us from deadly rays from space that would otherwise kill every living thing on our planet, if it weren't so fucking amazing, and good at doing what it does. 




> It seems Boss would have us believe that his gawds intelligently designed the universe.... just once in a while, the gawds are subject to an _oopsies_.



I didn't say that, did I? Spiritual nature intelligently designed the universe, but we have to break this down word for word, and explore what each of us believes with regard to the individual words, because we are talking about completely opposing concepts. The spiritual energy which created the physical universe, didn't make mistakes. 



> Yet we still have Boss insisting that his gawds designed an orderly universe when, as noted, Boss's gawds provide "order" by way of planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc. Galaxies collide, stars exhaust their fuel and explode in emission of energy that is "cosmic" in scale which obliterates other space objects. Black holes consume entire portions of space. Space objects collide and are reduced to dust. There are also huge areas of the cosmos which are empty and other areas relatively dense with planets, stars, etc.



Again, you seem to think I have proposed a specific incarnation of this outer-worldly being who behaves and acts like a morally superior human and calls himself God. And that I believe HE did all this, on his own accord, subject to the laws of physical nature, like a human being. And being that such a being did this, he must have really been fucked up to create so much chaos in the universe filled with order, because that makes sense in your human brain. 

I want you to think about all the phenomenal events you just reeled off, they are happening all over our universe, every second of every day... has been happening for billions of years... will happen for billions more, most likely... Still... we exist here on our planet, with the ability to reason and rationalize thought, explore and create, appreciate nature's wonders and beauty, completely oblivious to the events you described. Doesn't that seem peculiar in the least bit to you? Do you honestly believe, just the right amount of chaos happened, to create this environment and all living things we are aware of in reality? 



> It seem the gawds have played a cruel joke on Boss.



No... it seems you've played a cruel joke on yourself.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I understand reality is an insurmountable concept for you.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Let it be noted that Boss is befuddled. The fact of a chaotic universe is not in question, as was demonstrated.
> ...


so much for a scathing retort ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Boss you shouldn't waste your time with Ruggedtouch or his girlfriend Jaws.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Reality is you lie and are a fraud.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What is a "short period of time" in relation to the universe and physical existence? What we observe, from the smallest atom to the farthest planetary system, is similarity of pattern. i.e.; design. Even the chaotic events in the universe are predictable, because physics has order, it isn't random. You simply can't argue that "chaos wins out in the end" because we've not reached "the end" of time yet. According to Dorito, the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, so how can chaos win out in the end?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


brown nose much?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


(place irony here!)


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Hey Daws here is your chance to correct the mistake. What am I lying about ? Explain why you're not lying ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 14, 2013)

Boss said:


> .....
> 
> I find this is the biggest error made by the disbelievers. They constantly want to apply physical science, laws of physics and physical nature, and preconceptions of thought and words pertaining to physical reality, to the spiritual nature. *I think that we can ALL agree, spiritual nature doesn't physically exist. *Why would the rules and concepts behind physical nature, have anything at all to do with spiritual nature? ...Other than, to prove that spiritual nature is intelligent in the designing of physical nature itself?




* "I think that we can ALL agree, spiritual nature doesn't physically exist."*


life on earth is not exclusive - 

... are you able to detach "yourself" from your physiology to fly around the room and them return to your body ?

we may agree your statement makes sense abstractly but the fact is on this planet spiritual nature does physically exist as physiology being one in the same (being the problem) and likely perishes when the physicality takes its last breath. 

... somewhere you have detached yourself from reality, your imortality has preceded your ability to sustain it.



*Why would the rules and concepts behind physical nature, have anything at all to do with spiritual nature?*

why would they be exclusive - even in the abstract does it make sense to have one without the other.

why would the thought be greater than the object ?





> I find this is the biggest error made by the disbelievers. They constantly want to apply physical science, laws of physics and physical nature, and preconceptions of thought and words pertaining to physical reality, to the spiritual nature.




well, the short story is the religious will always combine the two as equal in importance or better, our God is the Garden.



Atheistic Spiritualism


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wow.... what an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function! 

Hmmmm.......


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2013)

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know? 

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing! 

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like  the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 15, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



bump for Derideo_te


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 15, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



bump for Derideo_Te.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> 
> Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!
> 
> Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like  the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?



Discovery of Accelerating Universe Wins 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics: Scientific American



> The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded today to Saul Perlmutter at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Brian Schmidt at the Australian National Lab and Adam Reiss at Johns Hopkins University for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
> 
> In a universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down, the Royal Swedish Academys Olga Botner said this morning at the announcement event in Stockholm. "Imagine then the utter astonishment when two groups of scientists headed by this years Nobel Laureates in 1998 discovered that the expansion was not slowing down, it was actually accelerating."
> 
> "By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae with the brightness of nearby supernovae," Botner continued, "the scientists discovered that the far-away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away. The universe was accelerating. And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come.



So the Big Crunch is not happening as it is proven that the universe is not only expanding but ACCELERATING in its expansion. This contradicts any notion of a Big Crunch.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The expansion of the universe is proven to be accelerating.

There will be no Big Crunch.

There are some theories that are speculative and not supported by any science at the moment but that 'work around' the accelerating universe problem, but so far all the concepts tossed out essentially to support an infinitely lasting universe have been proven wrong, and I don't see any reason to suppose this will stop. It seems that atheists are so desperate to believe the universe is of infinite duration that they propose fanciful things that science consistently knocks down.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



lol, no it wont, no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels together.

Time and space are joined at the hip. If one is of finite duration then the other is also.

An infinite accelerating universe is nonsense as the total mass would crush it back in on itself in infinitesimal time.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

> Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!



Is this theory repeatable and testable? If not, it still has no basis in science or physics. Still, it appears to be a functional "system" which indicates intelligent design and pattern, not chaos. So there is actually a DOUBLE-fail here.... 1st, this is an unsupported THEORY and 2nd, it denotes design and pattern.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but* if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom?* Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> 
> Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation.* So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing! *
> 
> Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like  the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?


We have the word of someone whose expertise says that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.[2] In 2011, a five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies and spanning 7 billion years of cosmic time confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds."[3][4]

One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[5][6] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious, repulsive form of energy known as the cosmological constant, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[7]

Other cyclic models include Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and Loop quantum cosmology.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not exactly, the oldest farthest extremes of the universe are found to be accelerating away from us, but that does not necessarily mean they are expanding. They could also be accelerating towards a super massive universal black hole and therefore be contracting.

You seem to have an infinitely expanding universe confused with a cyclic universe.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> ...


Again, if you pay attention to what is actually proven and what is assumed based on what was proven you find that it is only proven that the farthest extremes of the universe are ACCELERATING. What is ASSUMED is that acceleration is the result of expansion due to some as yet unproven dark energy. However the ACCELERATION could also be the result of the gravitational pull of a super massive universal black hole which would support a contracting universe. The matter is hardly settled, but the Big Crunch does not require an as of yet unproven dark energy and therefore is a better fit with our known phenomena.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> 
> Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!
> 
> Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like  the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?



The above truly displays the fallacy of the intelligent design creationist. You should be aware that the theories surrounding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not intended to contradict your religious beliefs. They are theories, proposed to account for the function of nature based upon the available science. The hyper-religious such as Boss predefine the function of nature as being subordinate to his gawds / supermagical intelligent designer. For that personality type, all of nature can be explained with the four word, the gawds did it.   


Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. Holy texts laud faith. Faith is needed only when _reason_ fails. If _reason_ fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds. 

Humanity is evolving away from gawds mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!
> 
> 
> 
> Is this theory repeatable and testable? If not, it still has no basis in science or physics. Still, it appears to be a functional "system" which indicates intelligent design and pattern, not chaos. So there is actually a DOUBLE-fail here.... 1st, this is an unsupported THEORY and 2nd, it denotes design and pattern.



Yet another nonsensical claim. Patterns in nature have no requirement for "design" as the result of your alleged "intelligent designer". Yet your continued appeals to religion and gawds.

Invoking your intelligent design creationism as an answer to the natural world is fine as a matter of religious faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, there is no allowance for making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and theyre not even _understandable_. Science can never confirm the magic of gawds. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to gawds. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and youre simply waving the magic wand of religion.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Yet another mindless noise response devoid of all hard facts. We have all come to expect your creationist kneejerk obtuseness. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 at the sheer IRONY! This is exactly what you have been doing since you started this whole thread. The first sentence of your OP begins with an insult and goes downhill from there. Too bad that projecting your own failings onto others isn't bringing hordes of believers to your creationist cause. Obviously they aren't swallowing what you are spewing either. Instead all you have achieved is to make yourself into an object of ridicule and derision. Great job!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> > Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!
> 
> 
> 
> Is this theory repeatable and testable? If not, it still has no basis in science or physics. Still, it appears to be a functional "system" which indicates intelligent design and pattern, not chaos. So there is actually a DOUBLE-fail here.... 1st, this is an unsupported THEORY and 2nd, it denotes design and pattern.



More unintelligent creationist drivel? Why doesn't Boss just join the original creationist thread instead of trying to start his own?


----------



## flowery (Jun 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> flowery said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




No ,, it's NOT 

May be you are afraid to watch them ,, that's all


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Irony:  A thread titled  *'Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?'* running strong after 128 pages and 29 days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GuOceSJWas]Ironic - Alanis Morissette - YouTube[/ame]

6 weeks / 201 pages and cooking   All questions - no answers.


----------



## flowery (Jun 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...





Really !!!!

How many kinds you've seen them do that !!  ,,,
I never saw such a thing , because I just see what is descent , polite and honest ^ ^
So, don't trust the lying media , and don't miss watching those videos , they are very healthy to the brain


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 15, 2013)

flowery said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Given that you have the internet at your fingertips you could try doing your own research to find out for yourself instead of only using it as an extension of your dogma. FYI brainwashing is mentally unhealthy at the best of times although those videos barely make it into the "dunk and rinse" category for those who are already believers.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 15, 2013)

> not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates




there is no reason for it to contract - after the explosion everything is expanding outwards where in the extreme future due to its angular projectile will eventually collide back into itself causing the finite compression necessary to again cause another expansive explosion.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 15, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That assumes a contained universe. Current measurements indicate an infinite universe. The assumption of serial big bangs has flaws. The more probable likelihood is that big bangs are events that occur at random intervals whenever matter becomes too dense in that part of the universe. The expansion of our tiny visible portion of the universe could be due to the heating of dark matter by the abundance of stars in our "neighborhood". Elsewhere the universe could be contracting because dark energy is coalescing back into dark matter. The limitations of our tools means that we are speculating as to what is happening in the rest of the universe. Granted this speculation is based upon the knowledge and data that we currently have in our possession but obviously there is a lot more to learn.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I guess graphs they use to demonstrate their theories proves it happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> 
> Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!
> 
> Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like  the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?



Peer reviews don't carry a lot of weight with me if the majority was correct most of the time vegas would be out of business.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Must we remind ourselves what a Theory is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> ...



Would you consider this as intelligent design ?

Genetically Engineered Animals


How bout this ?

Engineered enzymes for chemical production. [Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## flowery (Jun 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> 6 weeks / 201 pages and cooking   All questions - no answers.



There are answers in my posts  .. 

Just watch those videos neutrality and impartiality


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.


Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved? 


Isn't it much more likely that some other despicable creature would tell you that to be saved you have to believe that Jesus was an edible triune mangod who floated up into the sky and will return one day when the dead come out of their graves to take believers up into hebbin to rule the earth for an eternity while they watch unbelievers burn forever in sulfurous flames?

Did you never read the story about the serpent in the garden?


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

> We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.



I only pointed out the cute little illustration of a cyclical universe, is not supported by science or physics. It is a theory that has not been tested or verified and can't be tested or verified. It is being falsely submitted here, as if it is "science" when it is not. Science is testable and verifiable, this theory isn't. This theory is more akin to "because I say so" than anything I have presented. But even IF the theory is absolutely correct, it still doesn't disprove a creator, in fact, it reinforces such a possibility because we have yet another "system" of organized structure and form, not what you generally get when things explode.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.
> 
> 
> Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?
> ...



Are you incapable of seeing God as anything other than a "super human" being? Obviously, there are a lot of religions who believe in such a God, but is there something inside of your brain that prohibits any other possibilities? 

What if God is merely a super-intelligent energy force? It has no sense of logic or human attributes, it is like electricity, it doesn't care if you worship it or acknowledge it? Why would such an energy "require" anything? Would it care that we have misconceptions of it?


----------



## Wake (Jun 15, 2013)

If a god exists, all we can do is speculate as to what it is.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whu?? Due to it's "angular projectile?"  Dude... go blow something up! See if it's "angular projectile" causes whatever you blew up to return to it's original state again! Go ahead, test it several times, see if you can ever cause the blown up object to ever return to the state it was in before it exploded? This theory is BUNK, plain and simple. It has NO basis in physics or science. You may as well be claiming the supreme spiritual energy periodically gathers all the elements in the universe together again, and starts over. It has just as much scientific basis as this bullshit.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Lets assume for the sake of discussion that God exists as the supreme living being whose absolute existence is the source and sustainer of all that is seen and unseen who could have in theory created any possible reality.
> ...






Who said anything about any 'super human being'?


And WTF is a super* intelligent *energy force that has no sense of logic?


Damn you are dense.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I've highlighted where you said it. A super intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic, could perhaps be god? It's a suggested possibility, are you opposed to possibilities?

And don't worry your little head about my density, Ed assures me, I will eventually become so dense, I will explode into billions of pieces and then regenerate and start over again!


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




THE supreme living being is not a super-human being, in fact it would not have any physical attributes to qualify as God.

You were just trying to make the subject of what I wrote to YWC about your pathetic unsuccessful attempts to deal with being soundly refuted over and over and over and over and over..........again.

The point was that even if God existed people who claim to know all about him( even if their concept of God is just  an intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic) and then try to persuade others into 'believing' their bullshit that contradicts both reality and logic are hardly distinguishable from the serpent described in the fairy tale.

That was the point. 

and don't worry about me worrying about your state of confusion. I really don't care if you lack the integrity to admit your errors shut up and go back to the drawing board.


I can clearly see your dedication to the super intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic  and that you have your well deserved reward already.

enjoy!


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> THE supreme living being is not a super-human being, in fact it would not have any physical attributes to qualify as God.
> 
> You were just trying to make the subject of what I wrote to YWC about your pathetic unsuccessful attempts to deal with being soundly refuted over and over and over and over and over..........again.



But there is no evidence of all this refuting, that's an amazing thing. I see where all of you are claiming my points have been refuted, but there never seems to be any quotes posted or anything to distinguish where this has happened in the thread. Perhaps this is all in your head? 



> The point was that even if God existed people who claim to know all about him( even if their concept of God is just  an intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic) and then try to persuade others into 'believing' their bullshit that contradicts both reality and logic are hardly distinguishable from the serpent described in the fairy tale.



I don't know about serpents in fairy tales. Sounds like a religious construct to me. If you don't believe in religious concepts, why are you pretending to argue one? 



> That was the point.



What? That you wanted to argue religious concepts you don't believe in and have no idea of what you're talking about with regard to? 



> and don't worry about me worrying about your state of confusion. I really don't care if you lack the integrity to admit your errors shut up and go back to the drawing board.
> 
> I can clearly see your dedication to the super intelligent energy force that has no sense of logic  and that you have your well deserved reward already.
> 
> enjoy!



But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled to tell us there is one. 

Yes, whenever my initial argument has been refuted, I will return to the drawing board, but that hasn't happened yet. Certainly, it hasn't happened as a result of your profound proclamation. You don't believe my argument, you don't accept it, but you haven't refuted it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I saw nothing to suggest there was anything supernatural taking place.

What a waste of time.

Back to your stupor.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled *to tell us *there is one.





how many of you are there?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > But I am not confused. You seem to be, you are here arguing religious concepts, which you've claimed you don't believe in. Trying to say a "supreme living being" is NOT to be confused with a "super human being" ...not sure what the difference is, but you feel compelled *to tell us *there is one.
> ...



Is Boss's first name Sybil?

Sybil (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





whenever someone speaks of themselves in the plural they either think of themselves as royalty or are speaking for a crowd. Since boss is neither royalty nor speaking for anyone else the prognosis isn't very good.

how many are there is irrelevant, its name is legion.

 Probably *a super intelligent energy force with no sense of logic* that escaped from the herd of pigs that threw themselves over a cliff a long time ago and found a new place to hide in the addled mind of boss.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



"Would that God require human beings to believe in things that contradict known truths about this reality created by him to be saved?"

What Does God require us to believe that contradicts known truths ?

Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly  knows there  is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.

Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic. 

Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?

We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.

You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Man can intelligently design biologically just like they design and build homes ,cars,computers.

But there can't be a super intelligent being that created and designed all we see. Back to your fairytale that all things we see was produced by chance with no purpose involved.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



And here you are, displaying your most proficient troll-like behavior, diverting away from the thread topic to make some inane non-point about some dreamed-up allegation you've made. When I said "we" in my post in question, I was referring to those of us who are reading this thread. That IS where you posted, and this ISN'T a private conversation between you and I, therefore, the usage of "we" as I stated, was correct. 

But let's not let that stop you from doing what you know how to do best, hurl insults at me, denigrate me in every way your little vapid minds can think up. This way, the less intelligent sheeple who stumble into this thread at 3k+ posts, will assume that you two geniuses (Dorito & hobelim) have successfully vanquished all my arguments, and you are merely enjoying the spoils of victory, as your servant girls feed you grapes. 

*someone cue the harp music!*


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> > We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> I only pointed out the cute little illustration of a cyclical universe, is not supported by science or physics. It is a theory that has not been tested or verified and can't be tested or verified. It is being falsely submitted here, as if it is "science" when it is not. Science is testable and verifiable, this theory isn't. This theory is more akin to "because I say so" than anything I have presented. But even IF the theory is absolutely correct, it still doesn't disprove a creator, in fact, it reinforces such a possibility because we have yet another "system" of organized structure and form, not what you generally get when things explode.


Again we have the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around the atom like planets around the sun claiming absolute authority on what is science and physics. 

The cyclic nature of the universe is predicted by the mathematics of the general theory of relativity and the cosmological principle. When Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity to the universe as a whole, he found that space-time as whole must be warped and curved back on itself, which in itself would cause matter to move, shrinking uncontrollably under its own gravity. If the universe lacks the repulsive effect of dark energy, then gravity will eventually stop the expansion of the universe and it will start to contract until all the matter in the universe collapses to a final singularity, a mirror image of the Big Bang known as the "Big Crunch." This gives the possibility of an oscillating or cyclic universe, where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. It all depends on the geometry of the universe. According to General Relativity the density parameter, Omega (&#937, is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature). The curvature of space is a mathematical description for expressing local relationships between distances, a spherical universe with &#937; > 1, a hyperbolic universe with &#937; < 1, and a flat universe with &#937; = 1.

So we see that a cyclic universe is based on math and observations and not "because I say so" which is YOUR only offering. Current observations suggest a flat universe, but that depends on a measure of dark energy that has not yet been confirmed and in fact current measurements come up very short. So while the cyclic universe is slightly out of favor today, it has not yet been disproved and as new data is collected could very well be confirmed.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That was even more pointless than your previous bit of pointlessness.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Obviously, this is from a graduate of the Harun Yahya madrassah.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What's interesting about the Adam and Eve fable is that in connection with the outcome of eating the fruit, the serpent told the truth. God lied. How ironic.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.
> ...



I did not "profess" anything, stop being a drama queen, stuff a tampon in! 

The theory that our universe reaches some arbitrary maximum expansion point, then contracts back in on itself, is NOT SUPPORTED BY PHYSICS!  The Einstein theory of special and general relativity, has nothing to do with this unfounded and baseless opinion. It is not supported with ANY math or logic, the universe is not contracting, it is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster, not slower.   "Could very well be confirmed" are your words, do you not understand what they mean? Means your theory is BUNK! You have absolutely NO scientific basis for it today. May as well be theorizing a magic unicorn created the universe!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it curious, we find *atoms*, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they *are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons.* Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. *Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos.* This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Stop being a pathological liar!


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates
> ...




angular projectile, within the dimensional universe for pedestrians is the equivalent return, to its origin of a tossed boomerang ...





> *Derideo_Te:* That assumes a contained universe. Current measurements indicate an infinite universe.



the curvature of the projectile would be accomplished unhindered in an infinite universe - as would an infinite universe also allow other similar occurrences in succession ...



because of expansion - in the distant future Earths sky will become void of any visible celestial object - after the apex of the projectiles (boomerang) curvature - the other celestial objects will begin reappearing and in the greatest of time will become visible to the naked eye just prior to everything colliding back into themselves.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death *the gift for believers is everlasting life.*




*the gift for believers is everlasting life.*


surly your scriptures did not make you believe a falsehood - 


What is possible is - Life in the Everlasting.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2013)

Boss said:


> The theory that our universe reaches some arbitrary maximum expansion point, then contracts back in on itself, is NOT SUPPORTED BY PHYSICS! * The Einstein theory of special and general relativity, has nothing to do with this unfounded and baseless opinion.* It is not supported with ANY math or logic, the universe is not contracting, it is expanding, and *the outer edges are expanding faster, not slower. *  "Could very well be confirmed" are your words, do you not understand what they mean? Means your theory is BUNK! You have absolutely NO scientific basis for it today. May as well be theorizing a magic unicorn created the universe!


I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.

First of all the outer edges are accelerating and ASSUMED to be expanding. The problem with that ASSUMPTION is from where we are we cannot actually know whether they are accelerating farther away from us because the universe is expanding or if they are accelerating toward a super massive universal black hole that is also farther away from us. We only KNOW that they are accelerating AWAY from us, the rest is speculation on ALL sides.

What we do see is that the objects near us are definitely slowing down as the universe near us expands and it is only the distant objects in the universe that are accelerating. The problem with being certain that the distant universe is expanding is that when you look out in space you are not looking out in a straight line. You are looking AROUND the WARP of space/time. I have tried to keep the explanations simple enough for an idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around atoms, but that has only encouraged you to claim it is unscientific. So here is a link with some of the math and science made about as simple as it can be. If you take the time to read it, which you won't, you would see that there are problems with the flat universe that competes with the cyclic universe. I had referred to this when I mentioned the calculation for the measured dark energy necessary for a flat universe is way too small. Remember without that dark energy you get the Big Crunch, so while a flat universe is the current accepted standard model, the Big Crunch has not been disproved and completely ruled out. It is STILL a valid option in science and physics in spite of your official pontification.

Accelerating Universe and Dark Energy - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.

The universe has continued to expand since the Big Bang, albeit at a slower rate since the period of inflation, while at the same time the gravity of all the matter in the universe is working to slow down and eventually reverse the expansion. *Two main possibilities therefore present themselves: either the universe contains sufficient matter (known as the "critical mass") for its gravity to reverse the expansion, causing the universe to collapse back to what has become known as the Big Crunch, a kind of mirror image of the initial Big Bang; or it contains insufficient matter and it will go on expanding forever.*

According to General Relativity, the density parameter, Omega, which is defined as the average density of the universe divided by the critical density (i.e. that required for the universe to have zero curvature) is related to the curvature of space. If Omega equals 1, then the curvature is zero and the universe is flat; if Omega is greater than 1, then there is positive curvature, indicating a closed or spherical universe; if Omega is less than 1, then there is negative curvature, suggesting an open or saddle-shaped universe.

The cosmic inflation model hypothesizes an Omega of exactly 1, so that the universe is in fact balanced on a knifes edge between the two extreme possibilities. In that case, it will continue expanding, but gradually slowing down all the time, finally running out of steam only in the infinite future. For this to occur, though, the universe must contain exactly the critical mass of matter, which current calculations suggest should be about five atoms per cubic metre (equivalent to about 5 x 10^-30 g/cm3).

This perhaps sounds like a tiny amount (indeed it is much closer to a perfect vacuum than has even been achieved by scientists on Earth), but the actual universe is, on average, much emptier still, with around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, taking into account visible stars and diffuse gas between galaxies. Even including dark matter in the calculations, all the matter in the universe, both visible and dark, only amounts to about a quarter of the required critical mass, suggesting a continuously expanding universe.

However, in 1998, two separate teams of astronomers observing distant type 1a supernovas (one led by the American Saul Perlmutter and the other by the Australians Nick Suntzeff and Brian Schmidt) made parallel discoveries which threw the scientific community into disarray, and which also has important implications for the expanding universe and its critical mass. The faintness of the supernova explosions seemed to indicate that they were actually further away from the Earth than had been expected, suggesting that the universes expansion had actually speeded up (not slowed) since the stars exploded. Contrary to all expectations, therefore, the expansion of the universe actually seems to be significantly speeding up - we live in an accelerating universe!

The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion (i.e. more than countering the braking force of the mutual gravitational pull of the galaxies) is space itself, suggesting that perhaps it is not empty after all but contains some strange dark energy or antigravity currently unknown to science. Thus, even what appears to be a complete vacuum actually contains energy in some currently unknown way. In fact, initial calculations (backed up by more recent research such as that on the growth of galaxy clusters by NASA's Chandra x-ray space telescope and that on binary galaxies by Christian Marinoni and Adeline Buzzi of the University of Provence) suggest that fully 73 - 74% of the universe consists of this dark energy.

If 74% of the total mass of the universe consists of dark energy, and about 85% of the remaining actual matter (representing about 22% of the total) is dark matter (see the section on Dark Matter for more discussion of this), then this suggests that only around 4% of the universe consists of what we think of as "normal", everyday, atom-based matter such as stars, intergalactic gas, etc. As of 2013, based on cosmic microwave background radiation data from the Planck satellite, the latest figures are closer to 68%, 27% and 5% respectively. Nowadays, this is generally accepted as the "standard model" of the make-up of the universe. So, for all our advances in physics and astronomy, it appears that we can still only see, account for and explain a small proportion of the totality of the universe, a sobering thought indeed.

Incorporating dark energy into our model of the universe would neatly account for the "missing" three-quarters of the universe required to cause the observed acceleration in the revised Big Bang theory. It also makes the map of the early universe produced by the WMAP probe fit well with the currently observed universe. Carlos Frenk's beautiful 3D computer models of the universe resemble remarkably closely the actual observed forms in the real universe (taking dark matter and dark energy into account), even if not all scientists are convinced by them. Alternative theories, such as Mordehai Milgrom's idea of "variable gravity", are as yet poorly developed and would have the effect of radically modifying all of physics from Newton onwards. So dark energy remains the most widely accepted option.

Further corroboration of some kind of energy operating in the apparent vacuum of space comes from the Casimir effect, named after the 1948 experiments of Dutch physicists Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder. This shows how smooth uncharged metallic plates can move due to energy fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space, and it is hypothesized that dark energy, generated somehow by space itself, may be a similar kind of vacuum fluctuation.

*Unfortunately, like dark matter, we still do not know exactly what this dark energy is, how it is generated or how it operates.* It appears to produce some kind of a negative pressure which is distributed relatively homogeneously in space, and thereby exerts a kind of cosmic repulsion on the universe, driving the galaxies ever further apart. As the space between the galaxies inexorably widens, the effects of dark energy appears to increase, suggesting that the universe is likely to continue expanding forever, although it seems to have little or no influence within the galaxies and clusters of galaxies themselves, where gravity is the dominant force.

*Although no-one has any idea of what dark energy may actually be, it appears to be unsettlingly similar to the force of cosmic repulsion or cosmological constant discarded by Einstein back in 1929* (as mentioned in the section on The Expanding Universe and Hubbles Law), and this remains the most likely contender, even if its specific properties and effects are still under intense discussion.* The size of the cosmological constant needed to describe the accelerating expansion of our current universe is very small indeed, around 10^-122 in Planck units. Indeed, the very closeness of this to zero (without it actually being zero) has worried many scientists.* But even a tiny change to this value would result in a very different universe indeed, and one in which life, and even the stars and galaxies we take for granted, could not have existed.

*Perhaps equally worrying is the colossal mismatch between the infinitesimally small magnitude of dark energy, and the value predicted by quantum theory, our best theory of the the very small, as to the energy present in apparently empty space. The theoretical value of dark energy is over 10^120 times smaller than this, what some scientists have called the worst failure of a prediction in the history of science!* Some scientists have taken some comfort about the unexpectedly small size of dark energy in the idea that ours is just one universe in an unimaginably huge multiverse. Out of a potentially infinite number of parallel universes, each with slightly different properties and dark energy profiles, it is not so unlikely that ours just happens to be one with a dark energy that allows for the development of stars and even life, an example of the anthropic principle.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths. 

according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.

The story of genesis  is about the giving of the law, and the creation of Adam and Eve about the elevation of people from among the wild beasts of the field into a 'living being' aware of right and wrong and bound to the consequences of their actions..

The law is the light which separates the darkness and before the light was given, "the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep' which has further allegorical meaning.






Youwerecreated said:


> [Looks like a lot of misinformation contained in the rest of your post. anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly  knows there  is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death the gift for believers is everlasting life.
> 
> Yes I did read the serpent and Eve story. Clearly Angels and God can do things that defy our known logic.




Nonsense. Angels and devils and all the wild beasts of the wilderness described in scripture from dogs and pigs to serpents and vultures are allegorical descriptions of well known types of people that allude to the heights and depths of human potential. The story is just a fairy tale. try to learn what it teaches.




Youwerecreated said:


> [Let's assume all the theories of how the universe got here and this planet was developed to support life and then miraculously life was spontaneously generated with no aid but naturalism were true. does that not defy logic by our current knowledge ?
> 
> We have no viable explanation for origins of anything. Reality shows us that living organisms are produced by other living organisms and they are produced by other organisms that are of the same kind.
> 
> You believe a logical person would believe a living organism was produced by non-life ?





No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.

And after being shown how the story can be interpreted allegorically without contradicting reality  a logical person would renounce their superstitious delusions forever and cut the ties that bind them in ignorance without ever looking back.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.


I grow tired of your ad hobelim attacks.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 15, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > No, I believe a logical person would read genesis and conclude immediately based on known scientific facts that either the story is complete bull or it is an allegorical story that coveys hidden meaning.
> ...





You might as well have tattooed a big penis on your forehead.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 15, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Wow.  Did you miss the pun and the razz smiley, or, are you just that sensitive?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...






lol, no I noticed how clever and cute and good natured it all was right away....

as I said.......


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I genuinely was trying to insert a little humor but I guess it was a bad idea since you don't know me.  My apologies.

As far as your assertion goes that any logical person would immediately dispense with the Genesis account; you fail to recognize the possibility that someone can be a believer and still deal with the bible in a logical manner.  Once (and this I understand isn't possible, given your position) you get past the idea that a Being created all this.... then nothing is impossible when it comes to what that Creator can do.  A tree that bears fruit which, when eaten, gives someone new knowledge?  Well, that's actually pretty low on the scale of miracles provided in the bible.

Take an honest step outside this discussion and pretend you are a computer programmer (assuming you are not).  If you could write a program that creates a virtual universe -- do you think it would then somehow be impossible for you to create a virtual tree that provides knowledge to someone who eats from it?  Expand that thought outward.  Is there anything you could not accomplish in this reality you have created?  Talking snakes and donkeys?  No problem.  Parting the waters of the Red Sea?  Piece o' cake.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2013)

> I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.



Again, I did not "profess" any such thing. I gave an analogy of how the pattern we see in microscopes regarding atoms is very similar to the patterns we see in planetary systems across the universe, and that point remains perfectly valid. I incorrectly stated the order of nomenclature, which I admitted just as soon as it was pointed out, when I was incorrectly accused of being a "molecular biologist." Since then, this empty-headed idiot, who hasn't made ANY valid point in this entire thread, has decided that he will continue to repeat this "professed" line over and over again, in order to ridicule. I never "professed" anything, I presented an analogy and was incorrect about order, and admitted I was wrong immediately. Apparently, being incorrect and immediately admitting you are wrong, is now an indication of idiocy. This is the point Ed seems to be determined to make, as much as he can. Of course, it's the ONLY point he has had ANY basis for in the entire thread, so I guess we can cut him some slack. 

As for the "Big Crunch" theory, you could have saved yourself a lot of time explaining it, and simply posted *"WE DON'T KNOW"*, as you repeatedly pointed out in the explanation itself. You see, for us  non-idiots, whenever we "don't know" something, we don't have a problem admitting it, we come right out and say that "we don't know" and we don't run around acting as if we really *DO* know. 

Regardless, the universe is simply not contracting. Theories that it will one day stop expanding and begin to contract, are not based in physics or math. It is a speculative guess. The really cool thing about  it is, humans will probably never exist long enough to witness it happen, if it ever does. Armed with this detail, morons like Ed are confidently running around proclaiming this is "proven science" and can't be disputed.


----------



## Ha3mme8tt (Jun 16, 2013)

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2013)

> That's my point. PEOPLE who claim to believe scripture read genesis and wrongly think the story is about the creation of the universe, even though scientific discoveries make the literal interpretation of that story impossible to be true and a complete contradiction of known truths.
> 
> according to some PEOPLE believing the story is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe is a required belief foundational to salvation even though such an assertion is false.



Nothing in science makes the creation story impossible. You have to apply a literal interpretation and relegate God to physical limitations, in order to even assume that something doesn't conform to science. 

My personal beliefs don't involve "salvation" so I can't tell you about religions who do or don't believe salvation hinges on belief in the creation story from a totally literal perspective. But I do know and have known, quite a few Christians, and none of the ones I know, believe the creation story is intended literally or that you have to believe in a literal interpretation in order to receive salvation. Most of the Christians I am aware of, believe that salvation depends on whether you accept Jesus Christ as the living son of God, who died on the cross for your sins. 

Now... there IS the possibility, the creation story of the bible, was written by some moron like Ed, who simply presented it as if it were a proven fact, when it was only a speculative theory at best? Because... who was around to record this story as it unfolded? The Bible tells us the story through the eyes of God. This, in itself, means the story is our imagination, divinely inspired or not. No one was here to witness these events except God. Does the modern scientific validity of the literal interpretation, have anything to do with the question of spiritual existence? Not the least bit.

Interesting side note to the question of the "creation story" in the bible. When God punished Adam and Eve, he sent them out to "replenish" the Earth. Think about what "replenish" means... were there people before Adam and Eve? Is the biblical account of God's creation of man, the original creation of man, or merely the re-creation of man in God's image? Read it carefully, it can be interpreted as such. 

Perhaps man had existed in a more uncivilized sense, a part of nature like everything else, cousins to the monkeys, etc.. and this Spiritual Force intervened to bestow man with spiritual understanding, which sparked humanity? This would explain one of the biggest flubs in the story, who did the children of Adam and Eve get with? Well, the Christians will jump in with their opinions to explain this, but why wouldn't the Bible explain it? I mean, of you were writing a novel, this would be a critical omission in the story line, don't you agree? This leads me to believe the creation story in the bible, at least the way it is interpreted by modern Christians, is not exactly accurate or clear, even in a metaphoric sense. 

It still doesn't nullify human spirituality.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> > I love it, the idiot who professed that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun is telling Einstein he knows nothing about general relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, you never admitted you were wrong, you merely repeated your planetary model every time including this last post. You say that claiming the whole atom is orbited by its parts is simply an order problem and not a fundamental concept problem, but it is as fundamentally wrong as your planetary model for the orbits of the electrons around the nucleus. You probably saw an illustration of an atom with a flat orbital layout and saw planets around a sun. But what you saw was only an overly simplified illustration of an atom. The electrons actually orbit in all directions and planes, not in a flat planetary plane. Furthermore I pointed out that the most common pattern in the universe is the VORTEX, not a planetary orbit or an electron's orbit around its nucleus. So you have been wrong on many levels while you continue to pontificate that the universe shows design patterns.





Boss' atoms





An illustration closer to reality.





Vortex





Vortex





Vortex


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> As for the "Big Crunch" theory, you could have saved yourself a lot of time explaining it, and simply posted *"WE DON'T KNOW"*,* as you repeatedly pointed out in the explanation itself.* You see, *for us  non-idiots, whenever we "don't know" something, we don't have a problem admitting it, we come right out and say that "we don't know" and we don't run around acting as if we really DO know. *
> 
> Regardless,* the universe is simply not contracting. *Theories that it will one day stop expanding and begin to contract, are not based in physics or math. It is a speculative guess. The really cool thing about  it is, humans will probably never exist long enough to witness it happen, if it ever does. Armed with this detail, morons like* Ed are confidently running around proclaiming this is "proven science" and can't be disputed.*


The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.

Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.

You are a piece of work!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Interpreting Genesis as though it were just one narrative is your first error, as it has several different storylines in it about totally different people and eras.

You  are projecting your expectations of Genesis onto it as much as any YEC fundamentalist.

Most of its stories have been found in other cultures of the region, so it would seem to be more than you think it is.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You don't seem to grasp what is going on. The various parts of the universe are not just expanding BUT ACCELERATING. There is no evidence of this acceleration slowing down at all, at least none I have read or have ever even seen reference too.

Can you  provide a link to the source you are getting this paradoxical speculation from?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Except that the acceleration is being seen in multiple different directions, not just one or a few.

And it is observed at the extremes where an acceleration would be more easily noticed and measured, and between galaxies as the gravitational force seems to belay the metric expansion.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2013)

> The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.
> 
> Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.
> 
> You are a piece of work!



LOL... So Ed is now saying, it is not known, what he previously posted about contracting universe, but neither is expansion, and that is simply false. We know the universe is expanding, and the outer edges are expanding faster. Of course, it is a theory, like much of science, but it is a testable theory. The idea that our universe eventually reaches a 'maximum' expansion, then starts contracting in on itself, is not supported by physics, or anything we can observe or test. It's a faith-based concept. 

BUT... EVEN IF... every single word is true, and our universe works like a Maytag, predictably cycling through like clockwork, to regenerate amazing and wonderful life and intelligence, over and over again... what an AMAZING machine God has created, don't you agree?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > > not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates
> ...



Dear Lord, do you have a LINK to a cite that has this 'observation', just one?


With an infinite universe, the mass would also be infinite, gravitational force would be infinite and there would be no acceleration in the universe's expansion.

Explain that.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.
> >
> > Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.
> >
> ...



Ed seems to start with his conclusion and then look for anything that might fit those conclusions and then accept them.

The vast majority of sources I have read have never suggested that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is toward A BLACK HOLE.

But I am going to dig in to this topic and see what is available. I have a theory that some here maybe resorting to blatant bullshit to cover their asses.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 16, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


As I have said repeatedly, it is only ACCELERATION that is measured, expansion is assumed. As I also pointed out, the universe was measured as slowing down originally. Then at the extremes acceleration was measured and attributed to an ASSUMED dark energy. I an assuming the gravity of a supermassive universal black hole is doing the accelerating towards the Big Crunch. Both are theoretical assumptions and neither is proven or disproved, but mine is simpler and involves only known phenomena. Occam's Razor applies.

Glimpse at early universe finds expansion slowdown | Atom & Cosmos | Science News

New measurements have captured the universes expansion when it was slowing down 11 billion years ago, before a mysterious entity called dark energy took over and began spurring the cosmos to expand faster and faster. The measurements, reported online November 12 at arXiv.org, are an important step toward understanding what dark energy is and how it works.

About 15 years ago, astronomers discovered that the universes expansion is accelerating by cataloging spectacular stellar explosions called type 1a supernovas. Because each explosion emits almost exactly the same amount of light, astronomers can use a supernovas observed brightness to determine its distance, and then measure its redshift, or how much its light is stretched, to determine how fast the supernova is moving away from Earth. Astronomers Adam Riess of Johns Hopkins University, Saul Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley and Brian Schmidt of Australian National University shared the 2011 Nobel Prize for their work using this technique to reveal that the universes expansion is currently accelerating and has been for the last 5 billion years or so.

But as bright as supernovas are, they are difficult to see deep in the cosmos, at distances corresponding to the time when the universe was only a few billion years old. So an international team of scientists with the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, or BOSS, employs a different method. They use the 2.5-meter Sloan telescope at New Mexicos Apache Point Observatory to collect light produced by feasting supermassive black holes that thrived a couple billion years after the dawn of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

As that light makes its long journey toward Earth, it occasionally runs into clouds of hydrogen gas and gets partially absorbed. BOSS scientists crunched the data on the light of almost 50,000 black hole emissions to create a map of where those gas clouds are and, using redshifts, how fast they are receding.

Based on the speeds of the most distant of those clouds, BOSS scientists determined the universes expansion rate a mere 3 billion years after the Big Bang. The team then compared its measured rate with those from more recent eras to conclude that the universes expansion was slowing at that time. The universe was a very different place, says study coauthor and University of Utah physicist Kyle Dawson.

The BOSS finding is consistent with physicists theories of how the universes growth rate has changed. Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe ballooned rapidly in a split-second era called inflation. Expansion continued afterward, but like a coasting car, the cosmos had nothing to keep it accelerating. The gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe was acting like rolling friction, gradually slowing down the expansion.

But as the universe got larger and matter got more diluted, scientists believe something began pressing the gas pedal again, causing expansion to accelerate once more. Scientists dont know exactly what the culprit is, so they call it dark energy. Eleven billion years ago, dark energy made up less than 10 percent of the total content of the universe; today it makes up almost three-quarters.

BOSS and other surveys are allowing scientists to chart the universes expansion rate over time and determine the evolving role of dark energy. The measurements so far lend support to the leading theory that dark energy is a natural property of empty space: The more the universe expands, the stronger dark energy becomes.

Other theories posit that dark energy is a temporary phenomenon like inflation, and that matters gravitational pull will one day take over and temper the universes growth spurt. Still other physicists suggest that dark energy will cause runaway expansion, perhaps to the point that in several billion years it will pull apart galaxies, stars, planets, and even atoms in a doomsday scenario called the Big Rip.

We cant confidently predict the future of the universe, Riess says, until we get a ton of measurements about the past. BOSS scientists are working toward that goal by collecting data from 100,000 more ancient black holes. Then they plan to upgrade to a larger telescope and survey more objects with a project called BigBOSS in 2017.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 16, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time. 

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.
> >
> > Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.
> >
> ...


Again, all we know is the extremes of the universe are accelerating, expansion is an assumption. There is not enough data or measured dark energy to confirm expansion. We do not have enough data to confirm that &#937; = 1. Both sides are speculating, each side has problems to be overcome by better data.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The ultimate hypocrisy of a sociopath. After denying that you pontificate what you don't know, you pontificate that the universe is not contracting, something that is not known only theorized, again pontificating that the theory is not based in physics or math after the physics and math were posted.
> >
> > Then after pointing out that I said that neither a curved or flat universe has been proven yet, you then pompously accuse me of proclaiming a curved contracting universe as proven science.
> >
> ...


There you go pontificating your bullshit even after you were given the math and science. Don't you ever get tired of lying?????


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...



The real issue with you comment about deal_(ing ed._) with the bible in a logical manner is that there is nothing at all logical about the Genesis tale. Its flawed at its inception and if you actually took the time to read it  in context  you would find that your gawds lied throughout the fable. Satan told the truth.
Christian theists have a real hard time with this. They consider all other-believers (atheists included) to be in a state of rebellion to "the truth" -- a truth they themselves ultimately admit has to be embraced purely on a "say-so" basis. Well, that sort theistic "truth" is literally indistinguishable from other theistic "truths" because all religious beliefs have that same impossible qualifier. Belief by faith.

Faith in the accuracy of the holy book(s)

Faith that prophecy was actually events that _truly_ happened in a given "present" that reflected a fulfillment of what was claimed in a "past" -- as opposed to the simpler process of saying, "Er, yeah, Jesus was born in Bethlehem" -- which goes totally uncorroborated-- but remains accepted as gospel truth nonetheless

Faith that miracles actually occurred (but exist outside validation)

And so on...

On the other side, we have a standard of knowledge and a bevy of evidence that points to a very naturalistic and integrated process by which life could have reached its present level of sophistication. There's a mountain of clues pointing to this, but since it remains silent on whether or not there is a deity involved, it's assumed that the process conflicts with the deity itself.

Well, evolution says nothing about gods, and doesn't pretend to. what it does do is it conflicts with the account of Genesis and therein lies the problem (that theists have. Eviltuionists have no problem with theists until theists try to force theology in science classes. Then there is a fight).

But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, _et al._ need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.

If you defend the "wrong info" theory by saying "a Being created all this", then you must address why other cultures didn't have such a conflict with immense timelines, and more or less sophisticated ideas and you're going to have to address why the gods offers no _updates_, but prefers there be clashes of ideology to a destructive level. Remember, this is a god who claims to have a vested interest in our _salvation_ so leaving clear hints as to his veracity is something he'd pretty much have to embrace in order to successfully fulfil his own agenda.

If you defend the literalist position, that means you start by _proving_ god exists, first and foremost.

Then you need to prove 6 days is an accurate number for the creation itself. Not 6 trillion years, not 6 hours, not 6000 weeks, but 6 days.

And of course you'll have to prove that competing tales are mythology whereas the Genesis account is not.

Every atheist I know-- myself included-- eagerly await a hint of such proofs from any theist, anywhere, any time. After thousands of years, not one has managed to do it.

Which, of course, really isn't that surprising.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 16, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...



"...deal with the bible in a logical manner"?

You provided a fantasy option rather than a logical one because you could not logically get over the initial hurdle of the "existence" of a "creator". Unless you can provide a "logical" basis for the existence of a "creator" everything else is just an exercise in futility. 

So let's address the logical possibility of the existence of an entity capable of "creating" the universe. To create something on this scale means creating all of the matter and energy that exists out of nothing and impose on it the physical law of the conservation of mass. Which brings us to the first logical paradox. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed does this mean that your creator has limitations? That it is possible for your creator to create something that he cannot destroy. If this is true then your creator is not omnipotent and it begs the question as to what other limitations does he have? 

Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator. 

We can continue this process but you probably get the idea by now that "dealing with the bible in a logical manner" is a double edged sword. Religion and faith have a place in this world but it is separate and distinct from logic, reason and science. There is a reason why science does not ever set out to "disprove" religion. Believers are making a mistake if they try and "use science" to "prove religion".


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> ....
> 
> But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, _et al._ need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.
> 
> ...



You either aren't a very good reader, or you prefer to lie and distort what you've read from me. The "super human being" god, which you keep asking "why did he do this? why did he make this?" is a god I don't believe exists, either physically or spiritually. God isn't a "he" and doesn't have humanistic attributes, in my opinion. God exists, created the universe and life, and is omnipresent. Paradigms and contradictions created by men, who don't comprehend God, is not God's problem. 

You continue to want to argue the bible and have a theological debate on the religious teachings of Christianity, when we are attempting to examine the question of a spiritual existence. Some people here, have been able to separate religion and spirituality, and discuss this question without bias, but you have not demonstrated such ability. You continue to default back to debating religion and religious beliefs. 

Now, it's very curious, since you claim to not believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, but you seem to want to challenge a story in the book itself, as if you have some valid interest in getting the story right. A story you don't believe in, and it doesn't matter if god did it in 6 days or 6 trillion years, you don't believe god did it at all. Let me ask you something, honestly... IF, for the sake of argument, you agree that spiritual nature can possibly exist... does it necessarily have to be in the form of Biblical god? Is that the only possible way that a spiritual god can exist? I ask, because your perspective seems to be this way, that either the god depicted in the Bible exists, or nothing spiritual exists at all. You continue to be unable to recognize spirituality in any other form than religious, and specifically, Christian. Just trying to get to the bottom of why that is?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator.






What makes you think that the world is imperfect ? isn't it more likely that your view is flawed?




Derideo_Te said:


> Believers are making a mistake if they try and "use science" to "prove religion".




isn't that the same mistake as using science to disprove the creation story? 


Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

even fairy tales convey truth. Do you think the story of the pied piper is false because there is no evidence that he ever existed?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


If you're going to argue for something you call "spiritual nature", you might want to first make an honest attempt to separate that from religion. You haven't done that. What you have done is align your so-called "spiritual nature" with very typical arguments for gods.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



The endless font of* IRONY* spews forth yet again!


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...




what purpose does it serve to believe that God can do anything when you ignore the reality he has chosen to create?


In reality serpents and donkeys cannot talk, except the human kind.

People have been comparing other people to animals according to their displayed attributes in the vernacular of every culture and language ever since people could talk.

How about rising from the dead? No problem?

Lets see.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Can a "perfect" being "create" an imperfect world? Isn't the creation of this imperfect world evidence that your creator is not "perfect"? Logic says that a perfect being could not create something that is imperfect. So it looks like we have used logic to discover another limitation of your creator.
> ...


In a "perfect" world small children wouldn't be dying.


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Believers are making a mistake if they try and "use science" to "prove religion".
> ...


Science is not "disproving" the "creation story". Science is simply uncovering the facts as they are. There is no "intent to disprove the creation story" on the part of scientists. 


> Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?


Care to share that revelation with everyone?


> even fairy tales convey truth. Do you think the story of the pied piper is false because there is no evidence that he ever existed?



Why do you believe that they are called "*fairy tales*" in the first place?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Ruggedtouch,you need new material.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your ignorance on what the bible states is just as evident as your ignorance of my education.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > anyone who studies the scriptures thoroughly knows there is no such place as the hell you describe. The punishment is everlasting death *the gift for believers is everlasting life.*
> ...



Yes I do believe and have no reason to doubt what is contained in the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The theory that our universe reaches some arbitrary maximum expansion point, then contracts back in on itself, is NOT SUPPORTED BY PHYSICS! * The Einstein theory of special and general relativity, has nothing to do with this unfounded and baseless opinion.* It is not supported with ANY math or logic, the universe is not contracting, it is expanding, and *the outer edges are expanding faster, not slower. *  "Could very well be confirmed" are your words, do you not understand what they mean? Means your theory is BUNK! You have absolutely NO scientific basis for it today. May as well be theorizing a magic unicorn created the universe!
> ...



Ed do you believe everything you read ?

3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | DiscoverMagazine.com


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Give me a break this sounds like the usual rhetoric of an atheist nothing more nor nothing less.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



So I was right, typical hate filled atheistic tactics.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.

Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.

The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.

Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




the way I see it physical death, a natural part of life,  is a blessing. If no one ever died it would take about three geological minutes for this planet to become an unspeakable hell.





Derideo_Te said:


> [Science is not "disproving" the "creation story". Science is simply uncovering the facts as they are. There is no "intent to disprove the creation story" on the part of scientists.




Maybe so, but scientific discoveries and known facts should be used as a constraint on what might be any possible interpretation of any written story that is supposed to have taken place on this earth in this reality.


Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?




Derideo_Te said:


> [Care to share that revelation with everyone?


 


I have been doing just that. Haven't you noticed?






Derideo_Te said:


> [Why do you believe that they are called "*fairy tales*" in the first place?





You must have noticed that I stand with you against all who would insist scripture is a historical document relating the literal truth.

all that I am saying is that there is much more there than what meets the literal eye.

To say it is not there is as silly as to claim that God diddled a virgin to father himself to so that he could become a fully human God without a human father..



Do you think that well known and long established literary techniques - allegories, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., etc., - do not apply to scripture, the Torah, which literally means instruction?


C'mon now, pay the piper.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The first moment problem would apply to your gawds, also. Although obviously, most religionists insist that their gawds get special dispensations... because their gawds have magical powers.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 16, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



There is no problem with time. The problem pertains to our perception of time as being linear. We place arbitrary limits on time by defining a day as a single rotation of our planet and a year as being the time it takes to circle the sun. None of these arbitrary limitations apply in the rest of the universe. Time is more analogous to a Mobius strip. It has no beginning or ending. We are only perceiving it from our own limited perspective which is why you believe that it must have a "beginning". Time, or to be more precise, Space/Time does not have any such limitation.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...






I am not an atheist. I just don't believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn.

And I know that anyone who does profess to believe such bullshit has either been misled or has made evil a deliberate choice.

I see you have made yours.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I have made my choice that is correct. If you are not an atheist you are not far from it with the way you think.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Oh and there are no scientific facts that contradict the bible just faulty interpretations.





There are no facts in science - only measurement embedded within assumptions.

There are properties that have been determined so many times by different researchers and different techniques that we can treat a narrow range of values by consensus as if they were absolute facts. An example would be considering the boiling point of methanol at 1 atm to be 65C within one degree of accuracy. For most purposes that will suffice, as long as we understand the source of our confidence.

The problem arises when we treat rarely measured properties as facts simply because they are printed in peer-reviewed articles or tables in books. We teach our students not to trust numbers in Wikipedia but have no problem if they can cite a reference in a peer-reviewed journal, even without thoroughly analyzing the experimental sections.

We delude ourselves into thinking that we can appreciate our uncertainty of the value of a property simply by taking multiple measurements, taking an average and reporting standard deviation. That is actually a useful thing to do if we remember that we are measuring random errors and completely ignoring systematic errors, which are possibly very common in infrequently measured properties.

Are There Facts In Experimental Sciences?

Do you feel just a tad bit silly now. This is on just experimental science now think of all theories that contain mostly conjecture very little testable science.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The result of "shaken baby" syndrome.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Well, according to the way I think I'm certain that if even one tenth of the bible is true at the judgment it will be better to have been an atheist than to have pretended to believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn....

maybe you should put that in your pipe and smoke it before you go running for a touchdown.... into the wrong end zone.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




LOL.... perhaps, but one thing is for sure, once a person loses their ability to be rational few, if any, ever get it back.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I won the game many moons ago. You can believe as you wish.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why yes, and belief in magic is supremely rational.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





  Oh no, I am in complete agreement. You are quite the winner. Anyone with eyes that see can see the many wonderful things believing in archaic superstitious lore has done for you.

You have your reward already!

I'm a believer!


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Magic, sorcery, mind control, whats the difference? Can you deny the effect it has on the gullible?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you're insinuating me how did I lose my ability to be rational ? When I look at a cell it is very easy to assume it did not form by chance. How is that not rational ?

Give me a rational explanation on how the cell could have formed naturally ?

When will you people get it,complex organisms and inanimate objects just do not pop in to existence with out outside help.

Man can design and build biologically and inanimate objects but you think it is not rational to think a supreme being exists that did the same thing but on a much more complex level.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



God has the ability to create that is not magic, that is his natural ability. same as man just much more complexity is involved.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I can agree that Zeus, with a formidable, unionized syndicate of gawds can show us the magic.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Nope. I read the posts from ywc and stare in astonishment at the damage caused by  religious fundamentalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

Yeah don't you just hate it when rationale comes back at you and you have no answer.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Yeah don't you just hate it when rationale comes back at you and you have no answer.






I hate to break the news to you but your rationales are irrational.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah don't you just hate it when rationale comes back at you and you have no answer.
> ...



Merely your opinion but have a great day.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...







> *YWC*: Oh and there are no scientific facts that contradict the bible just faulty interpretations.




*Yes I do believe and have no reason to doubt ...*


and what of faulty interpretations of religious Texts - are your beliefs not verifiable ?


has the Thread proven a Spiritual entity can exist without a physical presence ?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> the gift for believers is everlasting life.


But first you must die!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



To be honest I find it hard to believe a spiritual being can exist without a physical presence.

The scriptures speak of Gods power that would suggest energy. I do not know what Boss basis his views on other then our spiritual nature which I agree that we have a spiritual nature.

Seriously Boss raises good questions that I just can't explain.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > the gift for believers is everlasting life.
> ...



Not all will experience death.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Some beliefs are verifiable some have yet to be verifiable. You are still forced to interpret the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Yeah don't you just hate it when rationale comes back at you and you have no answer.



When is "rationale" defined by claims to magic?

Quick, look up the definition for rationale and consider the use in your sentence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah don't you just hate it when rationale comes back at you and you have no answer.
> ...



Like I said earlier Hollie you need some new material.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Many religions made similar claims for their gods. That Paul, in his invention of Christianity (have you heard of the Pauline gospels?), stole ruthlessly from earlier religions is not surprising.  

To the back of the line you go with your appeals to gawds and magic.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I honestly don't know how I could make it clearer. I've have repeatedly stated that I have no "religious" belief, and my understanding of god doesn't conform with understandings found in organized religion. My spiritual understanding of god is not a god with humanistic attributes, who "cares" about you, "loves" you or "judges" your behavior. My god doesn't need you to worship it, and I don't need to "save" you through my god. The only relative similarity I have indicated, is that my god is a spiritual entity, responsible for creation. 

If I have pointed this out once in the thread, I have done it a dozen times, at least. Still, I have people like yourself, accusing me of "pontificating" and "proselytizing" as if I am Billy Fucking Graham. I think this is because, in your minds, spirituality equals the Christian version of God in the Bible, and can't possibly ever be anything else. It's almost as if your minds are completely closed to any other possible incarnation of god, but you claim to not believe in any god. 

Could it be, that you actually DO believe in the God in the Bible, and fully believe that this is the one and only true god, but you are just in denial, or angry at your god? Because you do seem to be unable to imagine any other form of god, and continue to want to debate Christian theology, as opposed to human spirituality.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I honestly dont know why youre unwilling to admit that your gawds are no different from any other assertions of gawds. Calling your gawds spiritual nature appears to be just another form of someone making their religion fit a comfortable niche.

Could it be that youre just another fundamentalist Christian creationist?


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> I honestly dont know why youre unwilling to admit that your gawds are no different from any other assertions of gawds. Calling your gawds spiritual nature appears to be just another form of someone making their religion fit a comfortable niche.
> 
> Could it be that youre just another fundamentalist Christian creationist?



I've addressed this as well. I don't understand why I would be a Christian, but ashamed to admit it? You see any other Christians here trying to run away from their faith? I don't! 

Perhaps it has something to do with the only sin in the Bible you can't ever be forgiven for, denying the god of the bible? It's true, you can literally murder people and be forgiven for your sin, but if you forsake god, you condemn yourself to eternal damnation. So why would I choose to condemn myself to eternal damnation, just to fool some jerks on a message board? Makes no sense whatsoever, does it? 

I have repeatedly denounced the biblical Christian god, and stated that I don't believe in that incarnation. So I have to either not be a Christian, or I am a really stupid one. You can believe whatever you please, but I assure you, I am not stupid.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 16, 2013)

Sorry kids, we are just as clueless on this issue now as when this thread started at post one. There isn't any more proof than disproof. Belief doesn't outweigh skepticism.  Why not debate whether chocolate is better than vanilla? Or if green is better than red? Let's just admit it's good to be alive and move on.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Sorry kids, we are just as clueless on this issue now as when this thread started at post one. There isn't any more proof than disproof. Belief doesn't outweigh skepticism.  Why not debate whether chocolate is better than vanilla? Or if green is better than red? Let's just admit it's good to be alive and move on.



There are plenty of reasons to believe in God and they have been rationally argued for millennia, starting with the ancient Greeks and Plato.

Science cannot prove God, but science does not have the final say as matters beyond this plane of existence are not testable.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



No less than the fraud of scientism has on the gullible and the foolish.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



IT would not apply to anything or anyone that began the flow of time itself.



Hollie said:


> Although obviously, most religionists insist that their gawds get special dispensations... because their gawds have magical powers.



Again,  you demonstrate you ignorance as there is nothing magical about the Big Bang, for example.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



ROFLMAO

A mobius strip does not escape the first moment problem, nor does changing the units of chronological measure.

There can be no following time segments of any kind on any model of time flow without there also being a FIRST segment of time.

As long as a T1 is followed by  a T2, there MUST be a first T of some kind.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



No one believes that God was wearing a diaper fool.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 16, 2013)

To many  good posts Jim.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality. 

While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Exactly, time is relative, it is not a constant.  Time exists only in terms of motion. Time can speed up or slow down according to its motion.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You have consistently failed to show why the GTR time-space would avoid the first moment problem. My understanding of it is that it does not.

If you cant argue your case then fine, admit it and walk away, but don't blame me as though I am too dense to grasp what you refuse to essplain, dear.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And NONE of that avoids the first moment problem.

But great rhetorical effort, points for that, ed.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




LOL...so no one believes the story about God diddling a virgin to father himself , no room at the inn, the manger, wise men, hark the herald angels singing, and  almighty God in swaddling clothes...diapers ?


So you are all just pretending to believe?

who knew?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

_et al,_

I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)?  And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



No, I am asserting that your mischaracterization of the conception and birth of Christ is flawed and no one believes it.

Which you know anyway. Straw men like you village atheists construct are fairly easy to spot and refute. The only puzzle is whether you do this being more due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)?  And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?
> 
> ...



I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation. The first moment problem and other arguments from the teleological and cosmological to proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

If these do not suffice, I sincerely doubt your desire to know.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Time began when motion began and ends when motion stops.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Here is some help for the village atheists here regarding the First Moment problem; Hartshorne.

But his counter-arguments are seriously flawed.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...





You are asserting that it is a mischaracterization that God was born on Christmas morn and found wearing diapers in a manger by the three wise men??

No one believes this??? ....you had better tell the Pope.


lol.....


I guess if anyone  would profess to believe what even you are suggesting is bullshit it would be due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > _et al,_
> ...




*I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation ... proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.*


there is no proof there of God ... where is found the persuasion between good and evil - the laws for the Everlasting - imbedded in the awful Judea / Christian texts, from previous religions and "Thought" ?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not according to Einstein, as I understand GTR. Time is a part of space and referred to as time-space. You cannot have space without time, apparently.

But even if they were separable, your observation does not answer the first moment problem, and you still have the fallacy of infinite regression that makes your assertion obviously false.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Define what you mean by 'proof'.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



It is not regarded as a fact that Christ was born on Christmas day. It is a day chosen in ancient times for convenience as it corresponded with the observable winter solstice.

And He wasn't wearing diapers, not a custom of that time.

All of which again demonstrates the ignorance you labor under and why you cant believe as you do not understand what is being discussed to begin with.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...





LOL...   my what big teeth you have there grandpa.


do you believe that God, in the person of Jesus, was born on whatever day of the year? 

Yes or no? 

If so, and he was not wearing diapers as you claim, did he crap all over mother Mary and Joseph? 


Or are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was God? 

You must have noticed that a few other Christians do profess to believe that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



What is your point if you have one ?

Jesus was a child and later grew to be a man like any other child. He was 100% human.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...






My point is that even when I am just repeating what so called believers expect rational people to just believe, THEY DON"T BELIEVE.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Can you clear this up for me I am missing your point.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I have no problem admitting that I am missing something here. What I am having a problem with is trying to figure out where you are coming from. So keep me honest here but if I understand your position you are saying that behind all of the myths, fables and arcane language there is something of substance. Is that correct? If so then what do you see as substantive? Please don't get me wrong. I am an Atheist but I respect those with genuine beliefs and who understand that it is more than just a "get out of hell free pass". Jesus didn't tell the story of the good Samaritan merely as a warm up to John 3:16. He didn't go around healing the sick and caring for the less fortunate just as a way to pass the time between sermons on the mount. It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)?  And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?
> 
> ...




If you read the OP, you already understand what the problem is. You don't accept the spiritual evidence. The definition of god was presented in the OP, for the sake of this argument, it is the spiritual force humans connect with. The definitive proof can only be realized through an understanding of the spiritual evidence, which you are unable to do, because you reject it. 

I don't know why this is such a hard thing for disbelievers to grasp. All through this thread, every page or two, we have someone new who pops in to retort with what they must think is a smug response to the OP argument. However, the very first thing I tackled in the argument, was definition of the terms and how this first needs to be established. If you don't accept spiritual evidence, then the question can never be answered. You can ask all the smug condescending questions you like, and you can ridicule religions and belittle people who practice them, and this question will still remain unanswered for you. 

We can argue various theories of the universe and origin of life, we can talk about the Big Bang and Big Crunch, and we can even derail the topic entirely and talk about something totally unrelated to the question, but unless you are able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you are completely wasting your time trying to answer this question.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables. 

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law with the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the flesh, figurative for teaching, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that can not ruminate.






Derideo_Te said:


> It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.





Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Rational people believe that non-living elements came together in just the right sequences to form life. If that does not require faith what does it require to believe ? because that can't be tested nor observed in the lab.

People that believe in God must make a choice which God that is they believe in. To me it is a contradiction to say I believe in the Christian God then reject some of the things in the bible. The bible is clear, faith is required because there are many things about God that would and do baffle man.

The scriptures say we do not fully understand God.

Job 11:7  Are you able to take God's measure, to make discovery of the limits of the Ruler of all? 

Do these scriptures sound familiar ?

Isaiah 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. 

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. 

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. 

Proverbs 21:8 The way of man [is] froward and strange: but [as for] the pure, his work [is] right. 

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein]. 

Proverbs 12:26 The righteous [is] more excellent than his neighbour: but the way of the wicked seduceth them. 

Isaiah 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 

Exodus 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land. 

I Corinthians 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 

I Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 

I Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 

I Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. There are words which man's wisdom teaches, but they are not the pure words of God. 

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever. 

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction. 

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding. 

Exodus 20:20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. 

Deuteronomy 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as [it is] at this day. 

Deuteronomy 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: 

Joshua 4:24 That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it [is] mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever. 

II Chronicles 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do [it]: for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. 

Nehemiah 5:9 Also I said, It [is] not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? 

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man. 

Jeremiah 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that [it is] an evil [thing] and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear [is] not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts. 

Romans 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 

Revelation 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 

Psalms 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. 

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. 

Amos 5:15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph. 

Micah 3:2 Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; 

Zechariah 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these [are things] that I hate, saith the LORD. 

I Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let [not] arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD [is] a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 

Psalms 119:128 Therefore I esteem all [thy] precepts [concerning] all [things to be] right; [and] I hate every false way. 

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 

Exodus 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us,


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, _et al,_

To claim that I've read all 3000 Postings, would probably be a fib (quibbling of sorts).  But I have read most of them; many being very interesting.



BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENTs SPECIFIC)*

*FOR* BreezeWood:  Yes, I saw several of your contributions and, in part, I have to agree with the substance of your view _(no proof of existence)_.  But I'm not sure we agree on what it is that we say there is "no proof of" in this context.

*FOR* JimBowie1958:  Yes, I've read many of your commentaries, mostly opposing views, but I have not yet seen you define what it is we mean when we say "God."  Yes, I have a _(somewhat)_ clear picture of your cosmic view, you opinion on memory, and disagreed with your thought on the timeline issue _(moment to moment)_ and the cosmological view _(in some respects)_, but I did not see where you defined "God:" its scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics.  I do understand "The Argument from Motion" _(Thomas Aquinas)_.  I think it is one of the great arguments; but I don't find it compelling.

But then, I'm an old man, and I beg your acceptance of my apology if you stated it and I simply don't recall it.

*(COMMENT - GENERALIZED)*

I find it difficult to follow the discussion when there seems to be a disparity on what the scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics of the topic ("God").  How you prove or disprove an "unknown" or "undefined" entity or quantity is very difficult for this poor old Sicilian Boy just trying to make his way through the world.

Is the topic a deity, a Supreme Being, a VMAT2 Gene apparition, limited powers, all powerful, spiritual or supernatural.  Is it subject to physical law or is it the creator of all laws?  To discuss it, the group must come to some consensus as to what it is.

I don't think we are there yet.  We haven't reached a conclusion of what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Maybe that is the problem for the non-believer.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, _et al,_
> 
> To claim that I've read all 3000 Postings, would probably be a fib (quibbling of sorts).  But I have read most of them; many being very interesting.
> 
> ...



The only way to objectively evaluate the existence of something spiritual, is to examine spiritual evidence. Physical evidence is great, but it can never prove spiritual existence alone, and it's illogical and irrational to expect this. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, therefore, they simply reject all spiritual evidence. Now think about it... if you reject physical nature, how can you prove something physical in nature? You can't! You have to first acknowledge the physical evidence exists, and the same applies with spiritual evidence, if you are unable to acknowledge it, you can't examine spiritual evidence. 

We need not define god in specific terms, to prove that a spiritual power greater than self exists. We do not have to specifically define anything, to prove existence. We do, however, need to come to mutual understanding on words like "exist" and how the word means different things, depending on whether you are talking about physical or spiritual existence. You see, those who reject spiritual nature, have no way to conceptualize spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron. God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity, proven by physical evidence of physical existence, and that is not a debatable question. 

So it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual nature. If you do not, then the question of god's existence can surely never be proven to you. However, if you can open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and willingly accept the spiritual evidence, you will find it is overwhelming and undeniable. Which explains why the non-believers absolutely refuse to allow spiritual evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Space/time has to do with the fact that the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, _et al,_
> ...


There is no evidence of the spiritual existing independent of the physical. In all cases, the physical exists first and then the spiritual is created by the physical. I have proven this over and over to you but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence as spiritual evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Yes there is evidence but people like yourself who have never witnessed it, believe people who have witnessed it are insane. I guess you believe the same for the priests and pastors as well.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As a musician, I have witnessed the spiritual habitually. All evidence of the spiritual is the result of the physical. The composer exists first before their spirit lives in their music.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> There is no evidence of the spiritual existing independent of the physical. In all cases, the physical exists first and then the spiritual is created by the physical. I have proven this over and over to you but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence as spiritual evidence.



The spiritual is not created by the physical, it doesn't matter how many times you explain it. You most certainly haven't "proven" this to be the case, you just keep repeating it as if it were. In essence, your argument is; Reality doesn't exist, it is merely the result of human perception. If humans lacked our five senses, there would be no perception of reality, therefore, it doesn't exist, it is only a sensory perception we experience.  

This purely existential argument can also be applied to spiritual nature, but if spiritual nature doesn't exist, do any of us actually exist? Smoke another bowl of chronic, and get back to me on that one!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence of the spiritual existing independent of the physical. In all cases, the physical exists first and then the spiritual is created by the physical. I have proven this over and over to you but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence as spiritual evidence.
> ...


There is nothing even remotely spiritual about you, and yet you exist. You are living proof that the physical can exist without the spiritual. There is no proof that the spiritual can exist without the physical.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I'm not lying ....best explanation ever .
you lie about everything as your premise is false so everything drawn from that premise is also false.... that makes you the world champion of lairs...


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



As a musician, you may have witnessed spiritual inspiration. The composer does have to first exist, before he/she can be spiritually inspired. What they produce, is not spiritual, it is physical in nature... they produce a song, a record, music... all physical things, not spiritual. It may be spiritually inspired, or you may realize a spiritual connection to the composer when you hear it, and also become spiritually inspired. This anecdote only supports the very real spiritual nature, which is very much a part of our universe.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss, _et al,_

Interesting enough.



Boss said:


> The only way to objectively evaluate the existence of something spiritual, is to examine spiritual evidence.


*(COMMENT)*

Interesting, in that it is spiritual, not material.



Boss said:


> Physical evidence is great, but it can never prove spiritual existence alone, and it's illogical and irrational to expect this. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, therefore, they simply reject all spiritual evidence.


*(COMMENT)*

What is "spiritual evidence?"

How do I recognize "spiritual evidence?"



Boss said:


> Now think about it... if you reject physical nature, how can you prove something physical in nature? You can't! You have to first acknowledge the physical evidence exists, and the same applies with spiritual evidence, if you are unable to acknowledge it, you can't examine spiritual evidence.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, what is it I have to acknowledge?   

Does the "spiritual evidence" interact with the material world? 



Boss said:


> We need not define god in specific terms, to prove that a spiritual power greater than self exists.  We do not have to specifically define anything, to prove existence.


*(COMMENT)*

What is an example of a "spiritual power greater than self exists?"



Boss said:


> We do, however, need to come to mutual understanding on words like "exist" and how the word means different things, depending on whether you are talking about physical or spiritual existence. You see, those who reject spiritual nature, have no way to conceptualize spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron. God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity, proven by physical evidence of physical existence, and that is not a debatable question.


*(COMMENT)*

So, the question concerning "God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity" is:

Can a "Spiritual existence" manifest a "Physical existence?"



Boss said:


> So it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual nature. If you do not, then the question of god's existence can surely never be proven to you. However, if you can open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and willingly accept the spiritual evidence, you will find it is overwhelming and undeniable. Which explains why the non-believers absolutely refuse to allow spiritual evidence.


*(COMMENT)*

Does this exclude the impact of a VMAT2 Gene the predisposes the belief in a "spiritual existence?"

Vmat2, or the God Gene: Reading Spirituality in the Human Genome  http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1830

Faith in God is down to your genes, says Researcher  Faith in God is down to your genes, says Researcher

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

flowery said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > flowery said:
> ...


I did, well some of each one...they didn't blow my skirt up!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?
> ...


meaningless analogy  but great example of brown nosing


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Sure it can... it's what created the Big Bang! Nothing of the physical universe caused it, because the physical universe didn't exist. Now, Dorito claims the universe always existed and always will, it is eternal and everlasting. Like God... but... the universe supposedly operates like a machine, running through various cycles, expansion then contraction, and then it all starts over again.... but this theory leads me to believe even more in a spiritual energy force, which designed the system itself, and controls every aspect. So far, you haven't disproved this.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


the·o·ry

 [ th&#63484; &#601;ree ]   


1.rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2.speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3.idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You are simply proving that there is nothing even remotely spiritual in your existence. 
Thank you.

Music moves the listener spiritually to emotions of joy, sorrow, etc. The physical instruments reproduce the notes, but the spirit that lives in the arrangement of the notes is what spiritually moves the listener. The inspiration for the music does not have to be spiritual. It can be a sunrise, the passing of a friend, the fluttering of a butterfly or the buzzing of a bee, all physical stimuli that express themselves in the spirit of the music.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


why would he want to be reminded of his own short comings?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 aye and there's the rub. no continuity and subject to interpretation...


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Again you show not only your complete ignorance of science, you show you are incapable of even learning.  It has already been pointed out that all the energy of the universe already existed and is what went bang at the Big Bang. Energy physically exists and can be measured. James Prescott Joule proved with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There is nothing spiritual about physical energy. All you have done is redefine the physical nature of energy as being spiritual.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! you've never won anything!
looks like the legend in his own mind syndrome has flared up again.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah don't you just hate it when rationale comes back at you and you have no answer.
> ...


I tell him that at least once a day..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


buulshit! everything dies ! the resurrections stories are not proof they cannot be corroborated ..


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Boss, _et al,_
> 
> Interesting enough.
> 
> ...



Spiritual evidence is that which is produced by spiritual nature, and is recognized by those who accept the possibility of spiritual nature. For instance, we have to accept that 70,000 years of human behavior concerning this attribute of spiritual connection, is not the product of wild imaginations or delusions, but that these people are legitimately making a connection to something outside of our material world. If that were not the case, and it was all in our heads, the attribute would have waned over the years, especially with the advent of modern science. We find, the behavior is persistent and constant, across our entire existence as a species, regardless of how many unknowns we answer with science. If it were all a figment of imagination and delusion, the attribute would have been beaten out of man, through thousands of years of persecution and death. If man invented spirituality to cope with death, we'd see evidence of other similar upper primates, fabricating imaginary placebos and security blankets, so they could cope as well. 




> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, what is it I have to acknowledge?
> 
> Does the "spiritual evidence" interact with the material world?



Most definitely, but you have to first acknowledge it exists. Does physical science interact with the material world? Of course it does, but this is of absolutely no use to someone who rejects physical science. You can't scientifically explain to me how rain happens, if I reject science and scientific explanations. You can try... you can talk about science until you're blue in the face, it gets you nowhere until I decide to believe in scientific evidence. If I reject science and call it nonsense and delusion, I will never be able to comprehend the scientific explanations of how rain happens. The same thing is happening with regard to this question about human spirituality. Until you can acknowledge the existence of spiritual nature, you can't possibly evaluate the spiritual evidence or make an informed decision. 




> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is an example of a "spiritual power greater than self exists?"



What kind of nonsensical question is this? In the OP, I covered the definition of "existence" and I explained very clearly, if you do not believe in spiritual nature, you can not conceive spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron to you. To "exist" can only mean in a material physical sense, because that is all you acknowledge. I have not argued that God is a material or physical entity, so this is of little use in answering the question. 

Humans have a unique and defining attribute, human spiritual behavior. We've had this for all our existence, as best we can tell from archaeology. It is intrinsically hardwired into us as a species, and nothing has changed it through the years. We've adopted all sorts of "religious" beliefs around it, so it's obvious the connection is real and compelling. Those religions have changed and been altered over time, proving the attribute is strong and evokes passion. This goes so much deeper than casual examination of specific religions and religious incarnations of god, it's a fundamental aspect to our species of life. Darwin would even agree with this, it can't be logically denied. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We do, however, need to come to mutual understanding on words like "exist" and how the word means different things, depending on whether you are talking about physical or spiritual existence. You see, those who reject spiritual nature, have no way to conceptualize spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron. God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity, proven by physical evidence of physical existence, and that is not a debatable question.
> ...



Anything is certainly possible. Christians believe Jesus was a physical manifestation of God. I am not here to argue theology or theological concepts of god. I have no proof to support the Christian incarnation or any other specific incarnation of god. Evaluating whether a supreme spiritual force exists (or is present) in our universe, does not mean that I have to specifically define the attributes of that force, unless my argument is for that specific incarnation, which it's not. I have only argued human spirituality, and I have avoided debate regarding the aspects of what that spirituality inspires, regarding organized religions. 

While human religion is certainly evidence that some spiritual nature is being connected to by humans, I believe much of it is predicated on man's misunderstanding of God. We are mortal human beings with no concept of God, and left with our connection to spirituality and our vivid imaginations, we have created all sorts of "religions" to attempt rationalizing this force that we most certainly are connecting to. Humans often do this, it's called "human nature" ...we ascribe human attributes to things, in order to appreciate them or in some cases, relate to them. People do this with their pets all the time, they treat them as if they are humans, and if you've ever watched the Dog Whisperer, you know that dogs are not humans, they think and behave differently. Still... millions of people prefer to relate to their pets as if they were human, with the same human emotions and way of thinking. We imagine "extraterrestrial life" as being some form similar to our own, except weirder. Our imaginations are often limited by our perceptions as humans living in a material physical world, where our 5 senses govern our perceptions of reality as we know it. 

So to answer your question as best as a human can, yes... it's possible for a spiritual entity to manifest physically. Whether it has ever happened or not, is a matter of debate regarding theology and philosophy. This does not need to be confirmed or supported in order to prove existence of spiritual nature. If spiritual nature had a detectable, testable and measurable physical presence of existence, it would be "physical nature" and not spiritual nature. So there is a built-in logical dichotomy here, do you see it? 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > So it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual nature. If you do not, then the question of god's existence can surely never be proven to you. However, if you can open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and willingly accept the spiritual evidence, you will find it is overwhelming and undeniable. Which explains why the non-believers absolutely refuse to allow spiritual evidence.
> ...



I think it is fascinating what science discovers, but my philosophy toward science has always been, that science exists as a tool of exploration, not a concluder of questions, but a perpetual asker of questions. Science NEVER draws conclusion, it states probability and prediction, based on testable physical evidence and observation. MAN draws conclusions.

It doesn't surprise me if humans are genetically predisposed to spirituality, in fact, it makes perfect sense that god would have created us this way. Humans aren't born Atheists. Ask ANY Atheist, if they have been one since birth, and most will admit they haven't been. Our natural human inclination is to be spiritually aware, it's what makes us human beings.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, _et al,_
> ...


humans are not born believers either.... if we were, there would be no atheists or agnostics.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> Spiritual evidence is that which is produced by spiritual nature, and is recognized by those who accept the possibility of spiritual nature. For instance, we have to accept that 70,000 years of human behavior concerning this attribute of spiritual connection, is not the product of wild imaginations or delusions, but that these* people are legitimately making a connection to something outside of our material world.* If that were not the case, and it was all in our heads, the attribute would have waned over the years, especially with the advent of modern science. We find, the behavior is persistent and constant, across our entire existence as a species, regardless of how many unknowns we answer with science. If it were all a figment of imagination and delusion, the attribute would have been beaten out of man, through thousands of years of persecution and death. If man invented spirituality to cope with death, we'd see evidence of other similar upper primates, fabricating imaginary placebos and security blankets, so they could cope as well.


No, they are making a connection to the spiritual nature WITHIN THE PHYSICAL WORLD. Without the physical there is no spiritual.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You've made my point for me, thanks!  What you experience is a spiritual inspiration, means it was *inspired* by spiritual nature. That isn't spiritual nature itself. It is the product of spiritual nature, indeed. But then... everything is the product of spiritual nature. 

We relate to reality through our five senses, correct? But what if humans didn't have these five senses? Would there be a reality? Would things still "exist" or not exist? What about Light? What if light did not exist? Spiritual energy and spiritual nature, created these things and bestowed all of "life" as we know it, with an array of "senses" ...we have five, that we generally recognize. Can you determine which plants to pollinate and organize efficient colonization of billions of people working together for a common objective, each knowing what is expected through telepathy? Well, other species have these "senses" that we sometimes call instinct, but it is amazing how they are able to do what they do. Can you carry 100x your body weight? I can't, that's for sure. 

The point is, we have no rational IDEA of how many "senses" are available to spiritual nature. We are only capable of understanding a few. Some people have chosen to close their minds to any comprehension of "senses" outside of their limited five. There is no way to reach those people, it is impossible to do, until they open their minds.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> *FOR* JimBowie1958:  Yes, I've read many of your commentaries, mostly opposing views, but I have not yet seen you define what it is we mean when we say "God."  Yes, I have a _(somewhat)_ clear picture of your cosmic view, you opinion on memory, and disagreed with your thought on the timeline issue _(moment to moment)_ and the cosmological view _(in some respects)_, but I did not see where you defined "God:" its scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics.  I do understand "The Argument from Motion" _(Thomas Aquinas)_.  I think it is one of the great arguments; but I don't find it compelling.
> 
> But then, I'm an old man, and I beg your acceptance of my apology if you stated it and I simply don't recall it.
> 
> ...



Wow, great response, R.

I will try to answer from my own perspective honestly and completely.

God: a being that exists in part outside of time and part within the flow of various time flows, but our own is all that is relevant for our discussion. In Christianity God the Father is in a constant state of acting and asserting various things within Creation. The Big Bang was His creation event, and the Son is His conception/intent/forethought of what Creation would be. The Father cannot change, is infinite in just about every capacity of power, knowledge and perfect holiness. Time/space sparing from God ultimately; there may be intervening layers of reality between us and His eternal existence but He does have a physical existence. The Son is also eternal and has flowed from the Father through all eternity and the spirit of life and love that they have shared with each other is the Holy Spirit. God is three persons in one being, each manifestations of the nature of Gods interaction with eternity, space/time and internally within Himself.

The ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments I think are compelling but the most compelling abstract argument is derives from the fallacy of infinite regression and the problem of the first moment in time. These would establish that God is a rational concept and plausible if not probable. I do not believe that one can have 100% certitude without forming a relationship with God that can bring one to 100% certitude, but this is rare and not necessary.

I classify myself as between churches, somewhere between Eastern orthodox and Roman catholic. I believe that reason is a means by which we can come to know God initially but faith is required more than reason for the whole journey home.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions, but note I speak only for myself.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



But it does not change the order of sequential events relative to each other. It observes a change in the flow of time and space between different streams of cause/effect change.

For example, two trains pulling a hundred cars on two parallel tracks can have changes in velocity relative to each other but that will not change the order of the cars in each train.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

> humans are not born believers either.... if we were, there would be no atheists or agnostics.



Nope. You learned to be an atheist or agnostic, you weren't born that way. Your own individual human nature compels you to be spiritually connected to something greater than self. This is why you can go to the deepest darkest uninhabited jungles of the world, and find tribes who have never seen outside civilization, and they are all practicing some spiritual belief of some kind. It is our "natural state" to be spiritual creatures, it is what distinguishes us from chimps who share 98% of our DNA.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> There is no evidence of the spiritual existing independent of the physical. In all cases, the physical exists first and then the spiritual is created by the physical. .



Try this Ed.

Sit alone in a dark room, in a quiet part of the evening. Focus on what sounds you can hear, perhaps a clock in the background, the sound of a pet moving, a child moving to the kitchen, a distant train, a radio one of your kids left on.

In each case you sit still and yet can change the focus of your mind from one sensation to another. you can recall memories of past events that make you begin to feel regret, or maybe anger, love or loneliness. You can think of an erotic time or a sentimental one.

What you think of is entirely under YOUR control. That part of you that decides what to think on what to focus on is YOU, it is your will or what some would call spirit. 

Those who think that the body or instinct drives the mind are partly right as a person can surrender their self control to what is sensational. But we have the capacity to choose, to ignore and to magnify the things that swirl around us.

This is our soul's best proof of being something other than mere matter driven like an animal from place to place, from instinct to instinct.

It is what we truly are.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Spiritual evidence is that which is produced by spiritual nature, and is recognized by those who accept the possibility of spiritual nature. For instance, we have to accept that 70,000 years of human behavior concerning this attribute of spiritual connection, is not the product of wild imaginations or delusions, but that these* people are legitimately making a connection to something outside of our material world.* If that were not the case, and it was all in our heads, the attribute would have waned over the years, especially with the advent of modern science. We find, the behavior is persistent and constant, across our entire existence as a species, regardless of how many unknowns we answer with science. If it were all a figment of imagination and delusion, the attribute would have been beaten out of man, through thousands of years of persecution and death. If man invented spirituality to cope with death, we'd see evidence of other similar upper primates, fabricating imaginary placebos and security blankets, so they could cope as well.
> ...



Spiritual nature exists (or is present) in our universe, just as physical nature is. Spiritual nature governs physical nature, and was the Creator of physical nature, physics, science, the five senses, light, electricity, gravity, black holes, dark energy, suns, planets, moons, atmospheres, LIFE, "reality",  Big Bangs and Big Crunches, etc., etc., etc. 

You have not proven otherwise, thank you for playing.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I think at the time they put babies in 'swaddling' garments, not diapers.

And Jesus was born of woman on a specific day, yes, but He existed prior to that and voluntarily took human form.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



The problem is that you fail to repeat the matter correctly because you have apparently not tried to understand what they believed in but only to get enough detail to mock them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> > humans are not born believers either.... if we were, there would be no atheists or agnostics.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You learned to be an atheist or agnostic, you weren't born that way. Your own individual human nature compels you to be spiritually connected to something greater than self. This is why you can go to the deepest darkest uninhabited jungles of the world, and find tribes who have never seen outside civilization, and they are all practicing some spiritual belief of some kind. It is our "natural state" to be spiritual creatures, it is what distinguishes us from chimps who share 98% of our DNA.



Knowledge of God is apriori.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, what is experienced is physical stimuli. The composer then arranges the notes to stimulate an emotional response in the listener passing the spirit of the composer to the perceptive listener. The physical composer and the physical stimuli exist first.

There is no spiritual energy. Energy is physical and as such can be measured. There is no way to measure your imaginary spiritual energy.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > humans are not born believers either.... if we were, there would be no atheists or agnostics.
> ...


There is no a priori knowledge.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Boss said:


> > humans are not born believers either.... if we were, there would be no atheists or agnostics.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You learned to be an atheist or agnostic, you weren't born that way. Your own individual human nature compels you to be spiritually connected to something greater than self. This is why you can go to the deepest darkest uninhabited jungles of the world, and find tribes who have never seen outside civilization, and they are all practicing some spiritual belief of some kind. It is our "natural state" to be spiritual creatures, it is what distinguishes us from chimps who share 98% of our DNA.


bullshit ! if your first sentence is true then it's also true that we learned to be spiritual.
there is no evidence that we were born with inherent spiritual traits, being spiritual is the polar opposite of our "natural state." spirituality is part of culture to have either you need organization on a large scale.
 that only happens when more immediate needs are met.   
btw no jungle is uninhabited if they were there would be no tribes.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

daws101,  _et al,_

Well, that is what we don't know for sure.  But, it would go along way to explaining a few things about fanatical and radical religious followers.



daws101 said:


> humans are not born believers either.... if we were, there would be no atheists or agnostics.


*(REFERENCE)*

The God Gene - Religion - The Book of Three  The God Gene



			
				The Book of Three said:
			
		

> There are three reasons why people believe in God and or attend services. Some carry genes for just 1, others 2, and a few, 3 reasons. If you inherited all three, you have the God Gene.
> 
> The God gene hypothesis states that some human beings bear a gene which gives them a predisposition to episodes interpreted by some as religious revelation. The idea has been postulated and promoted by geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Hamer has written a book on the subject titled, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.



The God-Gene: Is Religious Faith and Experience a Biological Misunderstanding?  The God-Gene: Is Religious Faith and Experience a Biological Misunderstanding?

*(COMMENT)*

If it is possible to account for this "spiritual acceptance" or "spiritual existence" that our friend "Boss" is eluding to, then it might be possible to discuss the the scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics of the belief in a deity, or Supreme Being.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sure there is.

That the universe is orderly is apriori and affirmed by the Judeo-Christian faith. Muslims do to for the most part.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



You won't get me to respond to most of your posts but once again ignorance on display. My victory was when I decided to put faith in the creator. Follow along with a conversation before replying so you don't continue to look so foolish.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Physical stimuli is a construct of the mind derived from nerve impulses. If one regards the mind to be spiritual, which I do, then ALL stimuli is spiritual.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not at the second coming.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



While I agree with you about the second coming, I have an aversion to make all my play based on an event that Jesus may or may not do in my life time. Seems like its testing God or something.

I would much rather kick ass now than put it all on Jesus shoulders.


----------



## Wake (Jun 17, 2013)

As I see it there is no concrete proof that a god lives.

I would ask, say, a Christian what he thinks of the Muslim's or Jew's beliefs on the end of days, etc. And, if that person scoffs and claims his religious point of view is correct, I'd ask on what basis his is correct and the other religious folks are wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> daws101,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, that is what we don't know for sure.  But, it would go along way to explaining a few things about fanatical and radical religious followers.
> 
> ...


thanks I read the article in time and have fallowed it since.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes your ignorance is on display ... 
you're not the victor of anything except this: legend in his own mind.
what you've giving yourself over to is the illusion of a creator...I could put my faith in Godzilla and have more proof of his power and existence then you have.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you mean the fantasy of a second coming? since there is no quantifiable objective evidence of the first....it's all speculation.
the joke is you'll die waiting ..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Why is it so easy to doubt the things you say Daws.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


kick ass? lol! 
you a bad ass for Jesus now?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


if you doubt what I say, you need to look at the shit you profess to believe.
either way you have no proof of a creator..


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


The universe is not orderly. The universe is chaotic. Wrong knowledge might be a priori.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Even with that questionable assumption, the physical stimuli came first and then the spirituality. So once again there is no spirituality without the existence of the physical.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


somebody just contradicted themselves and it's not you.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic;  _et al,_

How sure of this are we?



edthecynic said:


> The universe is not orderly. The universe is chaotic. Wrong knowledge might be a priori.


*(QUESTION)*

Since astronomers are not sure what they can see, what makes you think the universe is chaotic?

Current theory says that they can detect only about 4% of the matter and energy in the observable universe.  Are you sure that is enough data points _(energy and mass distribution)_ to draw your conclusion?  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> edthecynic;  _et al,_
> 
> How sure of this are we?
> 
> ...


I guess it depends on what you mean by "orderly." Since we can observe something in the universe colliding with something else in the universe or exploding no matter where we look, that seems quite chaotic to me. But I guess to others that might seem orderly.






When galaxies collide.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Wake said:


> As I see it there is no concrete proof that a god lives.
> 
> I would ask, say, a Christian what he thinks of the Muslim's or Jew's beliefs on the end of days, etc. And, if that person scoffs and claims his religious point of view is correct, I'd ask on what basis his is correct and the other religious folks are wrong.



Straw man. The God of Christianity is a derivative of the God of Abraham in concept, and a variation of Allah. Jews and Muslims think that the Trinity is incompatible with their idea of God but it is not.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because he is a duplicitous pile of fecal matter?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic;  _et al,_

Yes, it does.



edthecynic said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic;  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, what you observe might be actually be the natural order of things.  We simply don't know.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, even what is apparently chaotic has underlying layers of ordered complexity.



edthecynic said:


> Wrong knowledge might be a priori.



lol, maybe wrong knowledge is....


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> edthecynic;  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> ...


The natural order of chaos.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic;  _et al,_
> ...



Ah, so you do admit that there is order in chaos...nice to see you catchin up, finally, lol


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic;  _et al,_
> ...



 Can chaos produce order ?

Can order produce chaos ?

This can be put to the test.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Yeah, actually there are orderly patterns to chaos.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Give me some examples because I can't think of any.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 17, 2013)

Well Jim I do believe definitely chaos can come from Order but I do not believe order can come from chaos.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


It was sarcasm.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The electrons position around a nucleus is random but stays within a valence shell. 

The result of dice rolling is random but patterns of results are easily described mathematically.

I don't think that what people think of as real chaos actually exists anywhere, and any examples of such would be open to future mathematical description that we simply are not aware of today.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Electrons can get excited and jump valence shells, how chaotic!


----------



## theword (Jun 18, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> jimbowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...



00110100011101000100101
10111100010010010000011
01000101101111001010000
01001101110101101010010
01001000010010100001010


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Thanks Ed it went right over my head, sorry Jim.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




The very notion that God took human form and was incontinent as an infant is absurd whatever they used to keep a baby tidy in the first century..

There never was and never will be a time when a human being was God or became God either before during or after their physical birth.


this is the truth, the very truth, even if it is also true that Jesus preexisted this physical life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

Hmm I think we all can agree the big bang if it happened was complete chaos.This planet came from chaos ? Hmm life came from chaos ? don't make any sense.

Design definitely seems like a more viable explanation. Not trying to be a homer !


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Jesus the man was not in the form of God until after his resurrection. It was a lesser form of the Almighty.

I believe the The Angel of the Lord was God in a lesser form as well. Man can't see God in his full glory and live.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



May I ask are you a believer but of Judaism?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




You must have noticed that some Christians believe that Jesus was a fully human third of a triune God that is really one. Some claim this God can become a lifeless matzo, literally, or that the lifeless matzo can literally become God and be eaten for spiritual life.


what's not to mock?

Why take issue with me for mocking the ridiculous as if the ridiculous should be taken seriously?

If you really believed , shouldn't you be confronting, not defending, the lies of people who spread bullshit in the name of the Lord?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hmm I think we all can agree the big bang if it happened was complete chaos.This planet came from chaos ? Hmm *life came from chaos ? don't make any sense.*
> 
> Design definitely seems like a more viable explanation. Not trying to be a homer !


Makes more sense than "No thing (God) created everything from nothing."


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



So you don't think God ever took a lesser form ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm I think we all can agree the big bang if it happened was complete chaos.This planet came from chaos ? Hmm *life came from chaos ? don't make any sense.*
> ...



How do we know what is outside our universe ? You have to say something had to always exist to believe in the big bang or you are saying the same thing. Why are there so many theories now suggesting the infinite universes or this universe is infinite? Because they can't say everything came from nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

I guess nobody wants to have this discussion.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


It has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity. Energy is something, it is not nothing. Everything in the universe is energy in some form.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess nobody wants to have this discussion.


it's been discussed dozens of times in this and other threads. Where have you been?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic, Youwerecreated, et al,

I'm not sure this is the case.



edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I guess nobody wants to have this discussion.
> ...


*(COMMENTS)*

Sometimes it is just more difficult to jump in.

v/r
R


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That may only apply in our universe. I have read where it has been demonstrated that matter and energy could be created for only a short period of time.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




Of course not. I didn't stutter. *There never was and there never will be a time when a human being was God or became God either before during or after their physical birth.*
even when God 'appears' to a prophet there is never a visible shape or physical form.

whenever God speaks to people he chooses from among those who are closest to him to communicate with those who are far away. 

This does not make the prophet, even Jesus , God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



You have not answered whether you believe in Judaism or not. If you're Jewish and believe in the Hebrew God it is clear he took a lesser form. You do sound like you might be a believer of Judaism.

1. Moses was pasturing the flocks of Jethro, his father in law, the chief of Midian, and he led the flocks after the free pastureland, and he came to the mountain of God, to Horeb.   &#1488;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1464;&#1492; &#1512;&#1465;&#1506;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1510;&#1465;&#1488;&#1503; &#1497;&#1460;&#1514;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1465; &#1495;&#1465;&#1514;&#1456;&#1504;&#1493;&#1465; &#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1503; &#1502;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1497;&#1464;&#1503; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1504;&#1456;&#1492;&#1463;&#1490; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1510;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1503; &#1488;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1489;&#1465;&#1488; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1492;&#1463;&#1512; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1495;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1489;&#1464;&#1492;: 


2. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1461;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1502;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1500;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1488;&#1461;&#1513;&#1473; &#1502;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1498;&#1456; &#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1492; &#1489;&#1468;&#1465;&#1506;&#1461;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1513;&#1473; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1461;&#1497;&#1504;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1467;&#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500;: 



3. So Moses said, "Let me turn now and see this great spectacle why does the thorn bush not burn up?"   &#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1464;&#1505;&#1467;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492; &#1504;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1492; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1464;&#1491;&#1465;&#1500; &#1492;&#1463;&#1494;&#1468;&#1462;&#1492; &#1502;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468;&#1506;&#1463; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1497;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1463;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1492;: 

4. The Lord saw that he had turned to see, and God called to him from within the thorn bush, and He said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am!"   &#1491;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1505;&#1464;&#1512; &#1500;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1498;&#1456; &#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;: 
5. And He said, "Do not draw near here. Take your shoes off your feet, because the place upon which you stand is holy soil."   &#1492;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1463;&#1500; &#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1463;&#1489; &#1492;&#1458;&#1500;&#1465;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1500; &#1504;&#1456;&#1506;&#1464;&#1500;&#1462;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1502;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1512;&#1463;&#1490;&#1456;&#1500;&#1462;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1464;&#1511;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1491; &#1506;&#1464;&#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1463;&#1491;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1514; &#1511;&#1465;&#1491;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488;: 


6. And He said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward God.   &#1493;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1464;&#1504;&#1465;&#1499;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1497; &#1488;&#1464;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1497; &#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1497; &#1497;&#1460;&#1510;&#1456;&#1495;&#1464;&#1511; &#1493;&#1461;&#1488;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1461;&#1497; &#1497;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1511;&#1465;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1505;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1461;&#1512; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1497;&#1464;&#1512;&#1461;&#1488; &#1502;&#1461;&#1492;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1496; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;: 


Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

As you can see that Angel was God himself.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 18, 2013)

Boss said:


> Spiritual nature exists (or is present) in our universe, just as physical nature is. Spiritual nature governs physical nature, and was the Creator of physical nature, physics, science, the five senses, light, electricity, gravity, black holes, dark energy, suns, planets, moons, atmospheres, LIFE, "reality",  Big Bangs and Big Crunches, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You have not proven otherwise, thank you for playing.




*- and was the Creator of physical nature ... suns, planets, moons, atmospheres,*


your abstraction, the OP is based not on physical nature but the nature derived from physiology, 70K years of (mankind only) a connection greater than self ....

prove to us a non physical Spiritual Nature could create an inanimate object.

this is important in understanding the limitations you have determined for Spiritual Nature as not having a physical presence.

or that the physical and spiritual nature of an individual is separable -


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> As you can see that Angel was God *himself*.


Do angels or Gods have genitalia?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see that Angel was God *himself*.
> ...





Starting to sound like many of the other Ideologues on your side. You probably have the same contempt for your parents.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Please leave my parents out of the debate.
Thank you.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Before a prophet receives a commission from God they have a vision of the 'glory of God' which is not a visible image. as described in Ezekiel what the prophet 'sees' has an encircling radiance like fire with the many colors of the rainbow that is both translucent and transparent. This 'fire' is seen in the mind  and is superimposed over whatever may be in the line of visual sight, as in the case of Moses, a bush.


As he 'comes closer' to God within his mind drawn by the perception of fire, the focus of his mind turns away from the visual and is concentrated on source of the perception of fire and eventually stands in the presence of the living God and hears only a voice.

The means by which God communicates with people is not evidence of God talking a lesser form anymore than you expressing yourself here is evidence of you taking a lesser form.


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again, you are completely wrong, and insisting you are right, without any basis or support for your argument. This seems to be as common as Hollie claiming I am arguing "because I say so!" 

Regardless of how you explain your analogy with the composer, you haven't shown how spiritual nature didn't exist first. Inspiration is expressed through the music, but this wasn't merely the act of composing, because every human is not able to compose something that spiritually inspires others. 

It is true, we can't currently measure, physically, spiritual energy. You are assuming this means we will never be able to. We also can't measure the energy inside black holes, it seems to defy physics because the energy is so strong, light can't escape. Does this mean we can ignore black holes and pretend they don't exist? Figments of our imagination... delusions... optical illusions... we can't currently measure or explain it, therefore, it can't exist! I'm going to start calling this "Ed's Short Bus Special Theory of Relativity."


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Spiritual nature exists (or is present) in our universe, just as physical nature is. Spiritual nature governs physical nature, and was the Creator of physical nature, physics, science, the five senses, light, electricity, gravity, black holes, dark energy, suns, planets, moons, atmospheres, LIFE, "reality",  Big Bangs and Big Crunches, etc., etc., etc.
> ...



I don't understand what you are asking me here. 70k years of human spirituality is a behavioral attribute found in our species, which is unique and different from any other living thing. Setting aside all prejudices and preconceptions, the fact that this behavioral attribute has existed as long as the species, proves the attribute is fundamental and essential to the species. Even Darwin supports this. 

I keep hearing "prove" this and "prove" that, but what is meant is, "give me physical proof" and spiritual energy poses a problem in that department. There is all kinds of spiritual proof, but one must first accept that spiritual nature is real.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 18, 2013)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What a great argument. A similar version has been used by scam artists, carnival barkers, snake oil salesmen and Kool Aid drinkers for as long as there have been those gullible enough to mouth the bait:
"What I'm telling you is the truth. You must believe me. You can confirm I'm telling the truth by believing I'm telling the truth. There are rewards if you do."


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Fair enough, now leave your insults out please.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Yes some have seen visions of God but I don't believe moses saw a vision of an God as an Angel did he ?

Why would he ask him to remove his sandals if God was not present ?

The bible does not seem to support what you were implying.




18. And he said: "Show me, now, Your glory!"   &#1497;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1463;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497; &#1504;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1489;&#1465;&#1491;&#1462;&#1498;&#1464;: 

19. He said: "I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion."   &#1497;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1458;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1512; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1496;&#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1462;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1493;&#1456;&#1511;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1514;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1501; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1508;&#1464;&#1504;&#1462;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1493;&#1456;&#1495;&#1463;&#1504;&#1468;&#1465;&#1514;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1464;&#1495;&#1465;&#1503; &#1493;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1495;&#1463;&#1502;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1458;&#1512;&#1463;&#1495;&#1461;&#1501;: 




20. And He said, "You will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live."   &#1499;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1493;&#1468;&#1499;&#1463;&#1500; &#1500;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1465;&#1514; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1497;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1464;&#1495;&#1464;&#1497;: 

21. And the Lord said: "Behold, there is a place with Me, and you shall stand on the rock.   &#1499;&#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1502;&#1464;&#1511;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1488;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1493;&#1456;&#1504;&#1460;&#1510;&#1468;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1464; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1463;&#1510;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468;&#1512;: 

22. And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by.   &#1499;&#1489;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1464;&#1492; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1489;&#1465;&#1512; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1489;&#1465;&#1491;&#1460;&#1497; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1474;&#1463;&#1502;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1510;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468;&#1512; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1474;&#1463;&#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1514;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1464;&#1500;&#1462;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1506;&#1463;&#1491; &#1506;&#1464;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;: 



23. Then I will remove My hand, and you will see My back but My face shall not be seen."   &#1499;&#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1492;&#1458;&#1505;&#1460;&#1512;&#1465;&#1514;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1493;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1514;&#1464; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1458;&#1495;&#1465;&#1512;&#1464;&#1497; &#1493;&#1468;&#1508;&#1464;&#1504;&#1463;&#1497; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1497;&#1461;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468;: 


This is where you can see Moses did not see a vision but God's glory.




35. Then the children of Israel would see Moses' face, that the skin of Moses' face had become radiant, and [then] Moses would replace the covering over his face until he would come [again] to speak with Him.   &#1500;&#1492;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1474;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1511;&#1464;&#1512;&#1463;&#1503; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1461;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;&#1489; &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1505;&#1456;&#1493;&#1462;&#1492; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1506;&#1463;&#1491; &#1489;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465; &#1500;&#1456;&#1491;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1461;&#1512; &#1488;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;:


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Well, I am sorry you interpret the argument that way, but there is nothing at all similar about my arguments and those of scam artists and carnival barkers. 

What I am telling you, is the truth. You can confirm it is the truth if you are able to evaluate the spiritual evidence. You do not need to take my word for this, you can prove it to yourself, if you can evaluate spiritual evidence. I have not promised you a reward if you do, and I personally don't care if you do. My argument takes your viewpoint into account, within the first two paragraphs, and I have not deviated from that argumentative point. You have the inability to analyze things through a spiritual perspective, you lack understanding of spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual evidence. You continue to illustrate how my point is made, that some people are unable to accept spiritual evidence, and thus, are unable to answer the question of god's existence. 

The fact that some people are unable to wrap their minds around something, doesn't mean that it's not real. Others, who have not closed their minds to spirituality, are able to objectively evaluate the argument I have made, and it definitively proves the existence of god... or something we can generally relate to as a supreme spiritual force, greater than man. You don't have to believe this, I don't care if you do, it your own loss if you don't. The evidence is still there, the case has still been made, and you've not refuted it. You can't refute it with anything more than "I say so" arguments you accuse me of. That's pathetic.


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2013)

YWC and hobelim... Why are you two having a religious theocracy debate in the middle of my thread? 

This topic is established purposely independent of religion and religious arguments. There is no proof that one god exists over another god, or that this is the real god and that isn't.... your understanding of god is wrong and mine is right.... those are legitimate theological topics which would make a great thread, but this debate is regarding the human spirituality trait, and our intrinsic connection to something spiritual. I understand that easily morphs into discussions of religious beliefs, but I have repeatedly requested those be set aside when evaluating the argument in the OP, this isn't about the Bible, or any incarnation of god. Whether Jews are the chosen people of god, etc., are not related to the  question of whether spiritual nature exists. 

Too many times, the question of god's existence becomes bogged down in just this kind of argument. Man has created religions and with them, images of god they can't support, but have established faith in. I'm not here to present an argument for any of those, they are the manifestation of what I am talking about, spiritual nature and man's ability to connect with it. In order to remain objective in evaluating spiritual existence, we have to be willing to set aside religion and religious arguments. This does not mean they are not valid arguments or can't be true, it just means that we can't allow them to interfere with our objective analysis regarding spiritual existence itself.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

Boss said:


> YWC and hobelim... Why are you two having a religious theocracy debate in the middle of my thread?




lol...were you an only child?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see that Angel was God *himself*.
> ...






Hmmm, maybe when it is written that this or that was done by the finger of God, it really wasn't his finger?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

Boss,  _et al,_

I have to agree in part.



Boss said:


> Too many times, the question of god's existence becomes bogged down in just this kind of argument. Man has created religions and with them, images of god they can't support, but have established faith in. I'm not here to present an argument for any of those, they are the manifestation of what I am talking about, spiritual nature and man's ability to connect with it. In order to remain objective in evaluating spiritual existence, we have to be willing to set aside religion and religious arguments. This does not mean they are not valid arguments or can't be true, it just means that we can't allow them to interfere with our objective analysis regarding spiritual existence itself.


*(COMMENT)*

A "definitive proof" cannot be based on faith, icons of faith, or _post facto_ documentation _(ie the Koran, Torah, Bible)_ based on hearsay; and organizational constructs built around that hearsay (organized religion).

As for "spiritual existence," or anything "spiritual" in nature, it requires some faith.  And while many people may be of a mind to believe in it, it has no "definitive" quality about it.  It cannot be used as "proof."  Having said that, circumstantial evidence can be  accumulated if it has some temporal or material quality to it that can be quantified.

In this regard, we still haven't defined what "God" is; or what we mean by the term.  If it cannot be defined, it cannot have an associated "definitive proof."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> 22. And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, *and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by*.   &#1499;&#1489;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1464;&#1492; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1489;&#1465;&#1512; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1489;&#1465;&#1491;&#1460;&#1497; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1474;&#1463;&#1502;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1510;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468;&#1512; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1474;&#1463;&#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1514;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1464;&#1500;&#1462;&#1497;&#1498;&#1464; &#1506;&#1463;&#1491; &#1506;&#1464;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If  the hand of God covered Moses while God passed by, Moses didn't see anything with his eyes even if he saw only his back.


The burning bush, the vision of Ezekiel, the vision of Isaiah, and even the star of david are all describing the same thing. 


aside from all that, even if Moses saw something you call the glory of God, it was not God.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Isn't there some thing in your belief system about bearing false witness?
anyway, the more you ass hats whine is more proof that you're wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hmm I think we all can agree the big bang if it happened was complete chaos.This planet came from chaos ? Hmm life came from chaos ? don't make any sense.
> 
> Design definitely seems like a more viable explanation. Not trying to be a homer !


baahahahahah! we can all agree that you are not rational and that any thing you suggest is also not rational ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I guess nobody wants to have this discussion.
> ...


on other threads trying to sell his bullshit and failing..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what insults? it's a fair question to ask if gods or angels have genitalia...
what insulting is your puritanical view of sex .....
the "my virgin ears /eyes" shtick...is unbecoming for a mature adult!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see that Angel was God *himself*.
> ...


bump


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

_et al,_

Chaos is the term we humans use to describe activity in which we are unable to detect or observe some orderly fashion we can recognize.  It does not mean that there is no order or logical sequence.  It is a term of convenience in the absence of another descriptor; we sometime say "nearly unpredictable behavior."  But it does not mean that there is not a rationale or explanation for the behavior.  We just may not know what it is.  Reductionism and chaos are extremely difficult to explain.  But there is more to chaos than meets the eye.

Similarly, time is a period or interval; a continuous succession of equal _(self defined)_ increments, of a hypothetical nature, between any set of given events.  It is a measure of convenience.  Time is not universal, but based on the relative position and acceleration of the observer to a given event, or set of events.  Currently we find it convenient to establish the following basic relationships.

Speed/Wavelength = Frequency
1/Frequency = Time
1/Time = Frequency
*(SIDEBAR for THOUGHT)*

Saint Thomas Aquinas once said that there are three (3) things God cannot do:

God cannot sin.
God cannot copy himself.
God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees.

How do we define the nature, powers, and characteristics of God?  Define it!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Thank you for the thoughtful response. So the 2 lessons are to only heed those who have spent time thinking things through and to not believe everything that is written and/or said.

From my own perspective I see it as always remaining true to myself first and foremost. Self deception is no different to deceiving others and neither is good. As for the ability to "perceive God" that might be a skill that not everyone shares. Just as there are those who have musical talent and those who are tone deaf this ability to "perceive" what others believe has never worked for me. Since I abhor self deception I am not about to lie to myself and say that I can "perceive God" when I cannot. 

Instead I make allowances for those who not only claim to "perceive God" but who also behave in word and deed as if they did. Those who profess to "believe" but behave in "unchristian" ways strike me as being dishonest not only about their beliefs but about themselves too. Disclaimer: This applies irrespective of the actual religion in question just in case anyone believes that I am picking on Christians only.

So unless you have some different way to "perceive God" that I have never heard of before  you might just be "singing a tune" that I will "never hear" in a manner of speaking.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

_et al,_

Very strange question.



daws101 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


*(RUMOR)*

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel _(not a Seraphim)_.



			
				Genesis 6:4 (Original KJV): said:
			
		

> There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




What I meant by saying that you are not far from being capable of perceiving God is that you already are adept in the foundational discipline of integrity required to wade through all the bullshit that surround belief in God which like thick dark clouds inhibit accurate perception..


I didn't mean that you are close to having the ability to pretend to believe in what you cannot perceive and become a three dollar bill like the majority of believers..

I think its safe to say that you will never die in that way.


As far as another way to perceive God, if you are willing I can show you a rational way to interpret everything from the creation story to feeding 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air to the resurrection of the dead and the ascension of Jesus which will paint a picture of a completely different God unlike the God created by a literal interpretation of those same stories, an unseen God that you already know.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if God existed he would have been intimately involved in your life already, even for all of your life ? 

That's where you should look.

With a new understanding of what God is like, you will see what has always been there and it will be impossible for you to not learn to sing a new song.

I will caution you that knowing what the majority of the world does not and maybe cannot know will separate you from the rest of the world in a very profound way.

If you are a seeker of smooth things or dream of easy street, do yourself a favor and run like hell....


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Very strange question.
> 
> ...


so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and  Barbie knockoffs!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Very strange question.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't that also make Jesus a Nephilim?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > _et al,_
> ...


I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.

And just why do you think that your grasp of God as a concept is so much superior to everyone elses?

Fuck you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > _et al,_
> ...



No, it would not. How the fuck do you get that?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The group labeled 'sons of God' does not equal the group labeled 'angels'.

You are being presumptive, no surprise there.


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Boss,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to agree in part.
> 
> ...



I see what you are saying, but doesn't everything require some faith? I mean, we rely on the properties of nature to be consistent tomorrow the same as they are today, do we not? Doesn't that require some degree of faith? Of course, the properties of nature have remained unchanged for a very long time, so our faith they will continue doesn't have to be much, but we do have to have it. Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute. A gamma ray burst could vaporize our planet in a few seconds, and where are any philosophical or scientific questions then? 

We do not have to "define" in order to confirm presence. I covered this early in the thread, if not in the OP itself. I gave the courtyard example: I can see a figure standing in the courtyard, I see it is a person... I do not need to define if it is male, female, up to no-good, or anything else, to confirm what appears to be a person in the courtyard. From there, I can begin to examine various aspects, is the object moving? If not, it could be a statue which appears to be a person, but if it is animated, it's most likely not a statue. But all of this will come after the confirmation of SOMETHING present. It does not require further definition.

We have to approach the question in step-by-step analytical fashion, in order to get to a definitive answer of any kind. The first step is to confirm that 70k years of humans being spiritual is not a fluke, not a delusion, not imaginations run wild, but an unassailable fundamental attribute humans can't function without, or never have been able to do for any broad length of time in all of human civilization. It is what distinguishes us from the rest of the living world, our ability to spiritually connect. Before the further discussion of God can happen, we have to first establish the spiritual connection humans have the ability to make, is legitimate and real, and not simply "in their heads" as has been suggested. 

I think 70k years of history confirms that humans have always been believers in a spiritual nature of some kind, and this is so diverse across so many various cultures found in all corners of the world, that we can't dismiss it as superstition or imagination. The "figments of imagination" arguments go out the window with Darwinist theory, because the primates in our ancestry who weren't hindered by their 'superstitions' and rituals, would have eliminated us, or become superiors to us. We would have abandoned superstition with the advent of science, and as we can see, people did abandon superstitions, they don't dominate the lives of people as they once did, they still exist, but mostly in a quaint and novel version for a laugh. Human spirituality is different, it has persisted through the ages, and it always will be our most defining attribute, really, our ONLY defining attribute, as a species. Anything else you can name, is driven BY our spiritual attribute. 

"God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 18, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




The Creator ... physiology

ok then, are the physical and spiritual nature of an individual separable ?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Chaos is the term we humans use to describe activity in which we are unable to detect or observe some orderly fashion we can recognize.  It does not mean that there is no order or logical sequence.  It is a term of convenience in the absence of another descriptor; we sometime say "nearly unpredictable behavior."  But it does not mean that there is not a rationale or explanation for the behavior.  We just may not know what it is.  Reductionism and chaos are extremely difficult to explain.  But there is more to chaos than meets the eye.
> 
> ...



God is infinite in power, knowledge and holiness, but these are not limitations, but perfections. So sin is not a limit to God's power/knowledge/etc, it is a facet of His perfection.

God cannot do what is untrue by definition. A triangles angles add up to 180 degrees as we define degrees and have observed about triangles. This is not a limit to Gods power or knowledge.

As to completely defining God, I'll do that when you can completely define the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory. none of these are as complicated and nuanced as the definition of God.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic,  _et al,_

No.



edthecynic said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Not by the Biblical Definition.  Nephilim are the off-spring of the "Sons of God;" taken in translation to be fallen angels.  

Jesus is the off-spring of the God of Abraham, not Arch Angels, and not Seraphim.



			
				- Jubilees 5:1-8 said:
			
		

> "And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and *they bare unto them sons and they were giants*.



There are many interpretations; this being representative.  It follows a similar theme to the Sons of Zeus _("Zeus being the Father of Gods and men")_,  who was himself the off-spring of Cronus and Rhea _(the parent of the Olympians)_.  The famous Son of Zeus, was of course, Hercules.

I diverge here a bit, but to answer your question, Jesus is not a Nephilim.  Jesus is a divine entity of the Supreme Being.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Boss,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to agree in part.
> 
> ...



So what Matthew wrote and what Paul wrote and what Jeremiah wrote, all that was hearsay? Really?



RoccoR said:


> In this regard, we still haven't defined what "God" is; or what we mean by the term.  If it cannot be defined, it cannot have an associated "definitive proof."




God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.

He needs to be defined only to the degree that it  is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.

You don't have to have a 100% perfect crystal clear definition of God to think rationally on who and what He is.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> edthecynic,  _et al,_
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



No one knows who the fathers of the Nephilim were supposed to be except that they were not angels or fallen angels, as the latter would make them demons.

Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> There are effectively two views[13] regarding the identity of the nephilim, which follow on from alternative views about the identity of the sons of God:
> Offspring of Seth: The Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) fragment 4Q417 (4QInstruction) contains the earliest known reference to the phrase "children of Seth", stating that God has condemned them for their rebellion. Other early references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain, are found in rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.
> Offspring of angels: A number of early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as "Angels". The earliest such references[14] seem to be in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek, and Aramaic Enochic literature, and in certain Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch (mss AQ) and Jubilees[15] used by western scholars in modern editions of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.[16] Also some Christian apologists shared this opinion, like Tertullian and especially Lactantius. The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans, can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries.
> 
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Don't tell me they equal the group labeled 'mankind.'


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 18, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



OK, you are using a common misconception popular in our culture.

An angel is simply a messenger from Heaven. Who knows what they look like? In the book of Genesis they were similar enough to human beings in appearance that they were confused several times for being strangers or travelers.

They don't necessarily have wings, that is an Etruscan concept handed down to the Romans who then gave it to Christianity.

Not everything that is in Heaven or that comes down from it is either human or angel.

The book of Revelations describes a great assortment of 'people' worshipping God that do not even look human.

Revelations Chapter 4:
6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

Boss,  _et al,_



Boss said:


> I see what you are saying, but doesn't everything require some faith? I mean, we rely on the properties of nature to be consistent tomorrow the same as they are today, do we not? Doesn't that require some degree of faith? Of course, the properties of nature have remained unchanged for a very long time, so our faith they will continue doesn't have to be much, but we do have to have it. Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute. A gamma ray burst could vaporize our planet in a few seconds, and where are any philosophical or scientific questions then?


*(COMMENT)*

That is absolutely correct.  We have "faith" that the planet will be here tomorrow.  But that is based upon the implication that we have no information to the contrary.  There is no Empirical Evidence _(observation or experimental data)_ that a life extinction event is going to occur.  That "faith" is not based on any "definitive proof"  _(the central theme to our topic)_.

Science, and the concept of "definitive proof" are not based on faith.

This statement sounds so "right" yet is so very "wrong."

"Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute."

Not everything in the universe _(what we know of it)_ is based on some probability _[Probability "p" Quantum Mechanics (QM) theme]_.   We are not even sure that we have a handle on QM.  As Eugene Wigner said: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."



&#8213 said:


> &#8220;The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.&#8221;



And let me make this very clear, not everything you read in the science columns these days is "science."  String Theory _(as an example)_ is not science.  



Boss said:


> We do not have to "define" in order to confirm presence. I covered this early in the thread, if not in the OP itself. I gave the courtyard example: I can see a figure standing in the courtyard, I see it is a person... I do not need to define if it is male, female, up to no-good, or anything else, to confirm what appears to be a person in the courtyard. From there, I can begin to examine various aspects, is the object moving? If not, it could be a statue which appears to be a person, but if it is animated, it's most likely not a statue. But all of this will come after the confirmation of SOMETHING present. It does not require further definition.


*(COMMENT)*

But you did define it.  You said it.   "I see it is a person."  But even if you did not recognize it as a "person," you would have to describe it in some manner even to convey it was detected.  Yes, it is something.  What is the something would always be the next question.  It is a matter of resolution.  It would have been unusual if you had said:

"I sensed something but it wasn't there."​
That is much different from saying:

"I had faith something was there."  OR  "I'm sure something was there, but I don't know what it is."​


Boss said:


> We have to approach the question in step-by-step analytical fashion, in order to get to a definitive answer of any kind. The first step is to confirm that 70k years of humans being spiritual is not a fluke, not a delusion, not imaginations run wild, but an unassailable fundamental attribute humans can't function without, or never have been able to do for any broad length of time in all of human civilization. It is what distinguishes us from the rest of the living world, our ability to spiritually connect. Before the further discussion of God can happen, we have to first establish the spiritual connection humans have the ability to make, is legitimate and real, and not simply "in their heads" as has been suggested.


*(COMMENT)*

This has been done.  The VMAT2 Gene has just now been discovered.  And we still don't understand what consciousness _(state of being aware)_ is and the impact it plays on religion and religious belief.



Boss said:


> I think 70k years of history confirms that humans have always been believers in a spiritual nature of some kind, and this is so diverse across so many various cultures found in all corners of the world, that we can't dismiss it as superstition or imagination. The "figments of imagination" arguments go out the window with Darwinist theory, because the primates in our ancestry who weren't hindered by their 'superstitions' and rituals, would have eliminated us, or become superiors to us. We would have abandoned superstition with the advent of science, and as we can see, people did abandon superstitions, they don't dominate the lives of people as they once did, they still exist, but mostly in a quaint and novel version for a laugh. Human spirituality is different, it has persisted through the ages, and it always will be our most defining attribute, really, our ONLY defining attribute, as a species. Anything else you can name, is driven BY our spiritual attribute.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, we are back to the genetics and consciousness.  But it is also important to understand that not everyone believes in the spiritual or supernatural.  You don't have 70K years of the belief in the supernatural.  What you have is an evolution in the attempt by humans to explain the "why."  The concept of the Supreme Being _(faith in a deity)_ is that of the "unseen hand."



Boss said:


> "God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.


*(COMMENT)*

However, this description could also be a figment of the imagination.  

[ame=http://youtu.be/Bgaw9qe7DEE]Richard Feynman - The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out - YouTube[/ame]
Richard Feynman - The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out​
What is a "spiritual connection?"  You have a connection with what?

It would be most interesting if you had been brought-up in Qom, Iran and indoctrinated in the Islamic belief.  Would it make a difference?  What if you had been brought-up in a culture that had no deity?  What is the nature of the belief.  Is it something learned?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## hobelim (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.
> 
> And just why do you think that your grasp of God as a concept is so much superior to everyone elses?
> 
> Fuck you.





 LOL... what was it? The three dollar bill remark about believers like you?


Fuck yourself.....


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 18, 2013)

JimBowie1958,  _et al,_

Not exactly.



JimBowie1958 said:


> So what Matthew wrote and what Paul wrote and what Jeremiah wrote, all that was hearsay? Really?


*(COMMENT)*

You are not privy to what Matthew, Paul, and Jeremiah actually wrote.  You are privy to an interpretation (many times over) and selectively applied by the The Septuagint, from Aramaic, thru Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin, and then --- various disputes.



JimBowie1958 said:


> God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.


*(COMMENT)*

Or, we can define what we believe in and attempt to prove exists.



JimBowie1958 said:


> He needs to be defined only to the degree that it  is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.
> 
> You don't have to have a 100% perfect crystal clear definition of God to think rationally on who and what He is.


*(COMMENT)*

But if you are so believing in the existence, than you must have some understanding in the scope and nature of the belief.  What is it that you think "God" is?  Or is it an indoctrination?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This is the whole problem, there is not a good way to explain what we don't fully understand. I don't think humans are anything more than physical beings who have the ability to connect spiritually. Think of us as "bluetooth compatible" and some people have discovered this feature and fully believe and respect the feature, while others don't know what the hell "bluetooth" means. Those of us who attempt to explain our experience, are met with hoots and chortles, what's all this mumbo-jumbo... you expect me to believe that? 

Spiritual and physical nature both exist. There may even be various dimensions of both, or even other natures we can't define as spiritual or physical, because we aren't aware of them. The arrogance in the wisdom of man is astounding sometimes, we operate on this conception of reality we have, without any sort of comprehension there may be things we don't know about in the universe, that aren't apparent to the physical reality we experience. I once gave the analogy, we are like small infants in a crib, sitting in a dimly lit room. We are aware of things familiar in the room, and our crib. We may even catch glimpse of the outside hallway, or see outside the window to another place. We can ponder and speculate what may be there, beyond the door of our room, but we have absolutely no knowledge of anything beyond what we can comprehend around us. The only things we can relate to are what is familiar, what we do know. Yet sometimes, people act as if we have it all figured out, there are no more questions to ponder, no more discoveries to be made, we know it all right now!


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Boss,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, but indeed there IS evidence, observable evidence, that life extinction events have most certainly occurred in the past, and will likely occur again in the future. I've had some rather chilling conversations from people who study NEOs, they tell me, by the time we see the fatal bullet coming, it will be too late, it then becomes a moral question of whether to inform the masses. Another one tells me we are about 10,000 years overdue. And I am sure, as the planet is tearing itself apart due to the cataclysmic impact, people like Hollie and Dorito will be frantically typing away to disprove God! 



> Science, and the concept of "definitive proof" are not based on faith.
> 
> This statement sounds so "right" yet is so very "wrong."
> 
> ...



Again, let me explain... "definitive proof" is when you have definitely proven. Nothing is ever really definitely proven, if you think about it. From a philosophical perspective, reality can't even be definitively proven. But in our general grammatical context, we typically say "definitively proven" to mean the question has sufficiently been answered beyond reasonable doubt. 

Now you say, but there IS reasonable doubt, because there is no physical evidence... but a spiritual entity doesn't produce physical evidence, you have to look at spiritual evidence. This is why it was so crucial to the argument to establish this from the start, you can't find "definitive" proof if you can't accept the evidence. 



> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you did define it.  You said it.   "I see it is a person."  But even if you did not recognize it as a "person," you would have to describe it in some manner even to convey it was detected.  Yes, it is something.  What is the something would always be the next question.  It is a matter of resolution.  It would have been unusual if you had said:
> 
> ...



But you are taking the analogy for one point, and attempting to make another point with it. I defined spiritual nature. I did not detail specific gods or religious incarnations of god, but I don't have to do that to establish spiritual existence. We're not talking about physical nature, there is no physical existence of God that I am aware of. The analogy was to demonstrate that details of description are not needed to evaluate presence. It's as valid when evaluating spiritual presence as physical. 



> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This has been done.  The VMAT2 Gene has just now been discovered.  And we still don't understand what consciousness _(state of being aware)_ is and the impact it plays on religion and religious belief.
> 
> ...



I admit, I don't know much about VMAT2, so I googled it. I found that there is a big dispute over the theory and hypothesis, and it's not as clearly understood as you have presented. 

We do understand consciousness, a lot of animals are conscious. They don't have spiritual awareness and ability to connect to spiritual nature. Perhaps this is due to a special gene we have, but then the question becomes, where did this evolve from? 

Why are humans compelled to explain the why? Other animals express curiosity all the time, we see no evidence of them creating imaginary playmates to comfort their concerns about why. It's the spiritual connection that humans can make, which no other living thing has the ability to make, which enables us to ask why. If there is a gene causing it, God is a pretty clever Creator. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > "God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.
> ...



Well, I am fortunate to have been raised in a free society, where religious freedom flourished, and throughout my lifetime, have had the experience of numerous teachings. 

I don't dispute that humans often use their spiritual connection to practice unwarranted actions they've perceived as 'holy' from their spiritual connection. They do this through organized religions, and there are good and bad things about that, it's a mixed bag. That's why it's not important to derail this topic for the sake of religious arguments. 

Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or even Atheism, humans are intrinsically hard-wired to worship something greater than self, and they generally do. This fact is science, it can't be tossed aside and dismissed as a fluke.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.
> ...



If I have to spell it out then there is no point.

douchebag bitch.

God will judge us all one day I do believe, and people like you are going to be shocked at how many walk through the Pearly Gates while people like you have to crawl through the gutter to get in.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958,  _et al,_
> 
> Not exactly.
> 
> ...



The NT books and letters have been found that date to the early second century. That is not enough time for a drift in meaning of the texts. To put much doubt on it you would have to argue that there were deliberate changes which is highly unlikely because the people of the time doing the copying believed that they would go to Hell if they changed one small character of the texts. The Jewish copyists were also similarly guided. The Masoretic text is almost 100% consistent with found text of OT books.

Nah, there is little reasonable doubt about the veracity of the Biblical text, with nearly zero change in meaning. Interpret that all you like.



RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.
> ...



But we know we do not understand God 100%, so I guess our best understanding is all we can do.



RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > He needs to be defined only to the degree that it  is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.
> ...



I have answered this question several times already. How many times do I have to answer it? Besides, the best answer would come from a catholic theologian, not a diletante lay person like myself.

But what is the point in answering your questions if you don't read the answers?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Boss,  _et al,_
> ...





People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.

Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.

People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc,  not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..

That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 19, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I do believe the sons of God were angels. A study on who they were.

Sons of God - Genesis 6 - Here a little, there a little - Spirit Realm


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 19, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



If a majority of students in the colleges believe as you do,I believe they are in store for a major shock someday.

I find it really funny you thinking believers are not able to think for themselves.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 19, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



What can you provide as evidence that believers are hardwired to believe in something greater than themselves and it came about through evolution ?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > ...............................
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


seems that way


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958,  _et al,_
> 
> Not exactly.
> 
> ...


bump


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


false declarative based on a completely bias and bigoted pov.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


true but not the shock you wish it would be.
  believers thinking  for themselves ?now that is funny  your whole belief system is based on not questioning  your gospels and believing they are the literal truth.
what you call thinking for yourself is not!

are you putting yourself up as a thinking for yourself representative,if so your arrogance is palpable.


----------



## Wake (Jun 19, 2013)

God... may or may not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

On one hand religious people can't provide unrefutable evidence that a god(s) exist. On the other, atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God.

Because of this philosophical rift where neither side can ever "win," we're left with each side arguing their beliefs based on no unrefutable evidence whatsoever. Round and round they go... where it stops, nobody knows.

This debate will likely continue until aliens conquer planet Earth, or cockroaches inherit the planet.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

hobelim said:


> People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.



It's simply not that. This is simply an excuse your simple mind has come up with, to simply  explain away the attribute. Your theory simply fails as soon as we look at other evolved social pack animals, who show no signs of spirituality. So what you are saying, simply defies Darwin.



> Many people crave being told what to do by their perceived superior, not because they have some innate mystical quality but simply because they lack the self respect and confidence to think for themselves.
> 
> People claim to believe in islam Christianity wicca, etc, etc,  not because they have great faith but because they have no courage to stand up to whatever alpha demon of whatever make believe God (the alpha of all alphas) frightened them into pusillanimous submission..
> 
> That's why is against the law to eat the flesh of brown nosed dorks.



Again, if your simple excuses were true, the homosapiens who weren't hindered by the weakness of a "crutch" would have eventually prevailed over those who were "weak" and needed the "crutch." Since 95% of the species is not Nihilist, we can observe that your theory is not true. Unless you are again refuting Darwinism?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > People being 'hard wired' to worship something greater than themselves is simply a consequence of evolution as social pack animals.
> ...


your number are incorrect.
 A new survey shows that 51 percent of people in the world believe in God. Only 18 percent don&#8217;t and 17 percent are undecided.

More than 18,000 people participated in the London-based poll in 23 countries conducted by global research company, Ipsos Social Research Institute.

The Ipsos/Reuters poll also found that 51 percent believe that there is an afterlife while 23 percent believe they will just "cease to exist." Around a quarter (26 percent) simply don&#8217;t know what will happen after death.



Read more at Global Poll: Most Believe in God, Afterlife

making your favorite term "Nihilist" incorrect.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I love how you completely ignored my dismantling of your theories which defied Darwin, and run off to find some superficial survey of 18k people, to refute my point about Nihilists. Only about 5% of the human population claim to be Nihilist. That means, 95% of the human population, at least thinks something spiritual is possible. A majority in your own poll, believe in afterlife. Less than 2 in 10 people, by your own poll numbers, don't believe in God. This is NOT supporting your argument, it continues to refute it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Daws why do we study the scriptures so ? to get to the correct interpretation. It is still left up to interpretation though. We are not robots and choose just as you to be ignorant and reject God or to believe. You people somehow broke free and over came being Hard wired through evolution to reject the creator, how convenient. You people type contradictory nonsense.


----------



## Wake (Jun 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> I love how you completely ignored my dismantling of your theories which defied Darwin, and run off to find some superficial survey of 18k people, to refute my point about Nihilists. Only about 5% of the human population claim to be Nihilist. That means, 95% of the human population, at least thinks something spiritual is possible. A majority in your own poll, believe in afterlife. Less than 2 in 10 people, by your own poll numbers, don't believe in God. This is NOT supporting your argument, it continues to refute it.



Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that something is right. Numbers don't mean something is correct or incorrect.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I love how you completely ignored my dismantling of your theories which defied Darwin, and run off to find some superficial survey of 18k people, to refute my point about Nihilists. Only about 5% of the human population claim to be Nihilist. That means, 95% of the human population, at least thinks something spiritual is possible. A majority in your own poll, believe in afterlife. Less than 2 in 10 people, by your own poll numbers, don't believe in God. This is NOT supporting your argument, it continues to refute it.
> ...



And if that were the only piece of information available, you are correct in making this point. However, this is not all the information. There is at least 70k years of human history, which shows the presence of strong spiritual connection. Indeed, as long as man has been 'civilized' he has also been behaving spiritually. 

If you scientifically studied any other form of life, and you noted a particular behavior in that species of life for all of it's existence, and this behavior showed evidence that it produced beneficial things for the species, which explains why it has retained the behavior... We could not draw the conclusion this behavior was irrational, made up, imagined, or product of mass delusion. We may say we don't understand the behavior, but it does seem to legitimately serve a function in the advancement of the species. 

It is not debatable that humans have always been spiritually connected, or that humans have benefited tremendously as a result. It's not debatable that other animals and forms of life, do not make up things to explain their fears or comfort lack of knowledge. It's not debatable that other upper primates, who share as much as 98% of our DNA, show no signs of even the most primitive forms of spirituality. All of the "reasoning" to explain why human spirituality exists, literally defies the theories of evolution and natural selection, and contradicts everything we know about nature itself. You have to adopt a FAITH in disbelief! 

"Science proves there is no need for God," is a *FAITH-BASED* statement.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I love how you completely ignored my dismantling of your theories which defied Darwin, and run off to find some superficial survey of 18k people, to refute my point about Nihilists. Only about 5% of the human population claim to be Nihilist. That means, 95% of the human population, at least thinks something spiritual is possible. A majority in your own poll, believe in afterlife. Less than 2 in 10 people, by your own poll numbers, don't believe in God. This is NOT supporting your argument, it continues to refute it.
> ...



Doesn't prove  it but it does indicate where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

This is how the handicaps on most sports are done, splitting the bets evenly by handicapping....and its the best predictor available.


----------



## Wake (Jun 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I am skeptical on the existence of spirits, because I base most if not all of my view on objective evidence that can be discerned through the five senses. Everything you have said is not debatable is indeed debateable and will continue to be so; saying that it is not is dangerous and borders on fascism.

Even though spirits cannot be proven through the scientific method, let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is true. You are saying that spirits exist. You are opening a massive, _massive_ door. 

How many spirits are there?
Are there water spirits? Fire spirits? Light and dark spirits? 
Do they have genitalia or not? Are they like the angels?
Are they able to procreate? Do they give people powers?
Can they be harnessed for energy? Can they be farmed?
What is their weight? Their size? Dimensions? Colors? 
How do they exist without being seen?
Is Golden Sun based on actual events?
How do they nest? May we hunt them? What is their flavor?
Their intellect: how high? Do they know more than one language?
Are they capable of destroying our world? 
Can spiritualists collect and battle them like trainers do their Pokemon?

The questions go on, ad nauseum.

I think you have tremendous belief in the notion of spirits, Boss, but I don't think you know for sure whether they exist or not. If they can be discerned through science, I would like to know, please.

If you still believe that spirits exist, why not angels and demons? Gods? Everything else? 

Imagine someone else. Imagine he says and believes everything you believe and say, except that you've swapped out spirits for any other kind of supernatural being.

And back to the numbers part, just because a lot of people believe something... that doesn't mean it's true. That's just logic. Correlation isn't causation. If many people believe something, they may be right... but saying that because most people believe something then it must be right is absurd.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


sorry there can be no correct interpretation as there are no original texts to interpret from .
all you're doing is interpreting an interpretation of an interpretation.
as always you make the classic false assumption that non believers are by some unknown means ignorant of scripture or the assumed presence of a god.
you can't or will not see the huge difference between knowing and understanding the fantasy of god and NOT buying the bullshit that god is real.
that is the worst kind of ignorance and you're swimming in it.
did like the part where you admit evolution is real!

one more thing Mr. clueless LIFE is contradictory the bible even more so..
no matter how much you deny it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



The mind is a 'spirit', independent of material control and the director of human behavior.

Why is it not 'spirit'? when we know it is immaterial?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



lol, you make all these unsupported assertions as though you think you were God; maybe that's why you cant believe in Him - you cant imagine two of you in the same universe.

One thing I know from reading your posts is that you will lie, spin, slander, twist and do anything you can to feel like you got the rhetorical advantage.

The fact that you are a fraud and a liar should make everything you say irrelevant to a discerning mind.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



might have been, but I doubt it. There are more sentient beings than just humans and angels in the Creation God has made.


----------



## Wake (Jun 19, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The mind is a 'spirit', independent of material control and the director of human behavior.
> 
> Why is it not 'spirit'? when we know it is immaterial?



Hmph. I doubt it. The "mind" is a very difficult thing to understand. The mind isn't a spirit, because a spirit is supernatural, but it's a puzzling thing to understand nonetheless. It's consciousness. How does the scientific method explain it? I suppose some things are beyond knowing. Our consciousness may very well be a result of random firings and reactions in the brain... but then why are we so able to think and discern when we want to? Jim, how do you reconcile the mind as being immaterial when consciousness itself can be manipulated by psychotropic drugs?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong I've made no unsupported assertions .
I did make one statement of fact:"there can be no correct interpretation as there are no original texts to interpret from .
all you're doing is interpreting an interpretation of an interpretation."-ME 
as to your false accusations ...call the waaaaaabulance!

you might want to use word and phrases that you actually know:
'An appeal to advantage is a rhetorical device in which the speaker encourages his or her audience to perform some action by representing that action as being in the audience's best interest.
An appeal to advantage can also be a request from someone in a position of power to someone who is in a socially subordinate position; the request is specifically for the subordinate to perform an act contrary to the subordinate's wishes, such that the subordinate is forced to commit the act in order to satisfy a more significant need. The appeal is specifically most expedient or advantageous to the person in power, but is also presented as forwarding the subordinate's interests in some significant way.  

 the above is not one of them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

Wake said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The mind is a 'spirit', independent of material control and the director of human behavior.
> ...



And M theory is not supernatural? If it pertains to speculation about things outside this universe, then a thing is supernatural isn't it?



Wake said:


> but it's a puzzling thing to understand nonetheless. It's consciousness. How does the scientific method explain it? I suppose some things are beyond knowing. Our consciousness may very well be a result of random firings and reactions in the brain... but then why are we so able to think and discern when we want to?



Good questions; guess you gotta find your own answers. I will share what I have learned and that seem true, but that's about it.



Wake said:


> Jim, how do you reconcile the mind as being immaterial when consciousness itself can be manipulated by psychotropic drugs?



Because the drugs interfere with the minds interface with the brain. Where is that exactly? I don't know, but it has something to do with the neurotransmitters, and I think it is likely to be some kind of quantum process using the brain cells michrotubules.  Quantum Consciousness

You might find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



This is hilarious. You say that you made no unwarranted assertions except for a 'fact' that you never provide support for.

Then you follow with....



daws101 said:


> you might want to use word and phrases that you actually know:



lol, you just cant make up this shit. Dawes you are the dumbest bitch on these boards, though Starkey and a few other do give you competition.



daws101 said:


> 'An appeal to advantage is a rhetorical device in which the speaker encourages his or her audience to perform some action by representing that action as being in the audience's best interest.
> An appeal to advantage can also be a request from someone in a position of power to someone who is in a socially subordinate position; the request is specifically for the subordinate to perform an act contrary to the subordinate's wishes, such that the subordinate is forced to commit the act in order to satisfy a more significant need. The appeal is specifically most expedient or advantageous to the person in power, but is also presented as forwarding the subordinate's interests in some significant way.
> 
> the above is not one of them.



Red herring much? ROFLMAO


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 19, 2013)

JimBowie1958;  _et al,_

Yes, I've heard this before.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure what a "sentient being" is.  Is a computer that is "self-aware," and able to learn a "sentient being?"  How do I recognize a "sentient being?"

I have a Maine Coon (Ace).  





"ACE" at 5 Weeks​
Today, Ace is quite a bit bigger.  But he knows his name.  He recognizes a mouse on the computer screen; he can _(even when it is not moving)_ search the screen and find it.  He responds to various stimuli; a big fan of Fever Ray and Nickelback.  He will let me know if he is hungry and if he is hurt.

What test do I perform to determine if he is a "sentient being?"

And what is the connection between being a "sentient being" and a "Supreme Being?"  Does a human baby have an awareness of the "Supreme Being?"  Or, is awareness of the "Supreme Being" _(the belief in a "Supreme Being")_ something that the baby is taught over time?

If you isolate humans, in a society that had no belief in supernatural beings, would they somehow create or deduce a "Supreme Being?"  Would a personality like "Jim Jones" or "David Koresh" emerge and convince people that have a religion?  How do we know that the same mental processes that follow the main stream religions are not the same processes at work in the case of "Jim Jones" and "David Koresh" ----> or the Heaven's Gate cult, and con artists like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 19, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I have nothing to add,you could not have been more spot on.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 I have absolutely no doubt that the creator of all we see touch and smell can make sure his words of truth are just that and the accurate message is not lost.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 19, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958;  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, I've heard this before.
> 
> ...



Off hand I would say the two basic criteria are 
1. the ability to form complex sentences, and
2. the ability to create music, have a sense of abstract things, and pass complex information to the next generation.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



Well, first of all, I have no idea what you're talking about with "spirits" ...I've not mentioned these. Do you mean like aberrations and ghosts? I don't know if those exist or not, and I've not claimed they do, nor made a case for them. Spiritual nature is what I argued, and this doesn't necessarily include spirits. 

Now let's be honest, you are skeptical regarding spiritual nature because it lacks physical confirmation. You can't detect it with your five senses, therefore, you assume it doesn't exist or doesn't have presence. I'll raise these questions again... Do you know which plants to pollinate? Can you coordinate billions of people to construct a colony through telepathic instructions, where each individual knows their role and does it? Bees and ants have the 'senses' to do these things and more. So are human's 5 senses all there is in the universe? 

We have, what can be called, a "sixth sense" of spiritual connection. Humans are the only species with the ability to connect spiritually, and it is the secret to our success as a species. To utilize this sense, you have to first believe in spiritual nature, if you've closed your mind to the possibility, you can't make spiritual connection. If you intentionally blindfolded yourself for many years, you would lose your ability to see. Would that mean that vision is not real?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 19, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I love how this pompous know-it-all calls a survey of 18k people "superficial" but because ONE, that's right ONE, Mongo Man 40,000 years ago in Australia was for the first time covered in red ochre in his grave and that means that everyone in the entire world for 70k years was strongly spiritual. 

Apparently for the first 30k years people were not spiritual because none of them were buried with red ochre before Mongo Man. BTW, Mongo Lady, the same age as Mongo Man, was not covered in red ochre, she was cremated, so women did not become spiritual until later.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



18,000 VS 7 Billion

Yep that poll is superficial.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That must be why the all-powerful, creator of all, Big Kahuna, god of the gods, Big Cheese in Charge has allowed the many different bibles and many different versions of religions and many different religious doctrines to propagate, knowing these various groups would forever be at each others throats.

Those gawds. They're such kidders.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you remember what God said he would do to anyone who alters his words ? I think most believers took him serious. Man creates religion not God the key with God is be the best person you can be by obeying the law the best that your ability will allow and believe on him. You must have faith the rest of the bible is for teaching and reproving setting the record straight. Your doctrine will not save you your faith in him will.

Religion is not what unites all Christians it is our faith in Christ that does.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Only according to mans dating methods which I possess no faith in. I have seen no evidence just the interpretations of that evidence that suggests an old earth. There is plenty of evidence that can be interpreted to suggest a younger earth. That is not evidence that will ever be accepted for the simple reason it would destroy most theories that exist today.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Not surprisingly, young earth creationists are almost exclusively fundie christians. 

I'm afraid that willful Ignorance on your part and rejection of science fact pointing to an ancient earth will need to remain a global conspiracy for the religiously addled.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Aborigines are fairly close to neanderthals and yet are in Australia how does that fit your theory ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I consider all evidence I am not prone to brainwashing and just accept any explanation.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Excepting your desire to embrace fear and ignorance, there is nothing to indicate that your gawds "said" anything.

You do know the various bibles were written by men, right? A haphazard collection of tales and fables written long after alleged events is hardly a reason to live In trembling fear of angry supernatural entities.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It does not matter which bible translation I read other than little differences the message is the same.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Actually, you suffer from preconceptions about your angry gawds which makes you a poor candidate for accepting reason and rationality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I believe you have no argument once again and are reduced to exposing your ignorance because of your contempt for believers.

I hit you with a question and you avoid it like the plague. How are you ever gonna learn if you continue to evade my questions that throws doubt on your faith filled beliefs ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If the message was the same, there would be no need for so many different versions of bibles.

Wasn't it you who claimed that the gawds wouldn't let their words be altered?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Humans are humans no matter their characteristics. You see hollie this is due to change within a family usually isolated from others. This is the sort of evidence that evolutionist extrapolate from to build their theory of evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You suffer from continued confusion. Furthering conspiracy theories as a way to promote your embrace of fear and ignorance is an emotional and intellectual defect only you can address.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nonsense only ID'iots / fundies would propose.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Like I said the message was not lost.

Example of little differences of saying the same thing.

Exo 3:2

(ASV)  And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 

(BBE)  And the angel of the Lord was seen by him in a flame of fire coming out of a thorn-tree: and he saw that the tree was on fire, but it was not burned up. 

(CEV)  There an angel of the LORD appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up. 

(KJV)  And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 

(KJV+)  And the angelH4397 of the LORDH3068 appearedH7200 untoH413 him in a flameH3827 of fireH784 out of the midstH4480 H8432 of a bush:H5572 and he looked,H7200 and, behold,H2009 the bushH5572 burnedH1197 with fire,H784 and the bushH5572 was notH369 consumed.H398 

(MKJV)  And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a thorn bush. And he looked. And behold! The thorn bush burned with fire! And the thorn bush was not burned up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Typical response.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Still avoiding the question.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's in bad form to behave like a petulant child when you're not equipped to defend your bankrupt argument.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Still the angry fundie who doesn't know what he's asking.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So many versions of differing bibles. 

What was it you were whining about regarding the alteration of the word of the gawds?


----------



## Wake (Jun 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This is a contentious issue, and first and foremost I want you to know that I'm not personally attacking you nor do I have any ill-will towards you. It is the very specific notions and concepts themselves that I take issue with. You I respect; some of your arguments I criticize.

My prior response to you about spirits was because you discussed the notion of spirituality, which in itself is a very brad definition. One could think it deals in the existence of spirits. If you open the door of discussion on the notion of spirits, you open a very wide door indeed. Thus, my somewhat sarcastic criticism. Spiritualism demands that spirits exist, and so I questioned and continue to question as much as I can the assertion that spirits exist. I don't see how spiritual nature cannot include the existence of spirits: Gods, sure, but not even spirits? If spiritualism doesn't involve spirits, why even have the word "spirit" in spiritualism?

For a moment I may have confused you with Jimbowie, who in this thread states the very mind is a spirit. Looking back, I did not, but could easily have. Both of your assertions on spirits deserve more questions, with general respect.

Your argument about ants and bees is interesting, but those creatures likely do their work due to instinct. I may be wrong, though, and that deserves as much fair research as it can get.  Boss, I take comfort in what I can know. Knowledge, not belief, is the surest foundation for one to rest on. If we leave our sturdy foundation of concrete knowledge, we march on the shifting sands of subjectivity, which may very well slow us down or drag us under. 

I cannot believe what I can't discern. This is why I don't believe in spirits, or gods, or demons, or angels, or monsters, or legends, or aliens, etc. Actually, there may do exist "alien" life, if indeed Earth is not the only life-sustaining rock in all the planets, galaxies, universes...

It is nice discussing and debating with you, Boss. You've got me in a more inquisitive mood now. ;-)


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 There is no need to support my statement it stands on it own. 
Question:

Do the original Gospels and Epistles written by the original authors still exist today? If so where are they, and can I go see them, (as in an address)? If not, could you tell me what happened to them? I am doing a report on the history of the Bible, and would like to know this info. Any information you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Response:

We do not have the originals of any of the books in the Bible. Before the invention of the printing press, books (originally scrolls) were copied by hand. Many copies were made of the biblical books for use in the early churches. What we have today are actually copies of copies. As far as what happened to the actual originals, we don't know but they probably deteriorated from use. The Greek manuscripts which we do possess today are kept in various museums and institutions, mostly located in Europe but there are a few in the United States. Scholars now must compare the various Greek manuscripts we have to try and determine what the original said. This process is known as textual criticism. The standard Greek texts of the New Testament are the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bibles Societies' 4th edition. They both contain footnotes throughtout the text indicating where there are major differences between Greek manuscripts. 
What Happened to the Original Books of the Bible?

so much fun watching you rationalize..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> JimBowie1958;  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, I've heard this before.
> 
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional. 

As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does *NOT* exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the *PAST* as well as the future. With an *INFINITE PAST* there is no "first moment" ever. 

Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has *ALWAYS* existed in the *PAST* just as it will always exist in the future.


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Please present your scientific evidence to support this theory. Until then, you are simply making a "because I say so" argument. There is nothing any more complex about human brain structure (or function) than chimps, if you believe that is true, you need to present evidence, otherwise, you are making a "because I say so" argument. 

Humans do have abstract thought, but this doesn't come from special brains that are different from all other primates. It comes from the human's ability to spiritually connect. You're free to believe in your "special brain theory" but until you can back it up with some science, it has no basis other than your word. We see no evidence of other upper primates practicing even the most primitive forms of spirituality, even though they have the same brain structure and function as humans. 

The 6,000 year-old Earth thing is real old. I would say, it's probably less than 2% of Christians who ascribe to this particular belief, yet it is repeated ad nauseum by Atheists, in almost every thread where religious arguments break out. Now, I am real sorry that some people believe this, but then... some people believe humans have special brain structure.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


your absolute surety is why you're wrong.
all it means is you've convinced yourself of it's veracity when actual evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt what you believe is false.
I do not need to support this statement as it supports itself.
you seem to forget or leave out that everything  you use as evidence must be absolutely correct for your belief to be fact.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


why did I know you'd say that!! 
there is nothing more superficial then religious dogma


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another fact-less sermonet . god has been credited for saying lots of things...none have ever come to pass..
please no scripture quoting that kinda sorta fits what you wish god said.
beside the bible is crammed full of people talking to god that can't be corroborated.
the same goes for god ..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


I guess I need to say this again....bullshit!


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



So you believe the universe is omnipotent and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that our universe operates as a functional 'machine' to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed. 

Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


another steaming pile of bullshit.
 Aborigine's are 100% Homo Sapiens.
while there is some argument as to when hominids left Africa, or if they migrated as they evolved from one hominid to another, The aborigines today came to Australia as fully evolved homo sapiens approximately 40,000 years ago, while the Neanderthal Disappeared in Asia 50,000 years ago. No offense to the Neanderthal, but i doubt they would have had the know-how to design the rafts necessary to travel in the Asian pacific to Australia..bhahahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


so what there is no evidence that what is described ever happened.
Moses didn't write it, god didn't.
 so who did?  
the author of Exodus is not credited.    
like all books of the bible it was not reported as it happened.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Chaos is the term we humans use to describe activity in which we are unable to detect or observe some orderly fashion we can recognize.  It does not mean that there is no order or logical sequence.  It is a term of convenience in the absence of another descriptor; we sometime say "nearly unpredictable behavior."  But it does not mean that there is not a rationale or explanation for the behavior.  We just may not know what it is.  Reductionism and chaos are extremely difficult to explain.  But there is more to chaos than meets the eye.
> 
> ...



The 3rd item only applies to a triangle in 2 dimensions. Consider the following scenario;

Start the apex of the triangle at the north pole and draw a straight line following the Greenwich meridian down to the equator. Now turn 90 degrees west and draw another straight line down to the equator. The angle of each line meeting the equator is 90 degrees to the equator. The third straight line of the triangle runs along the equator. What you now have is a triangle with 270 degrees as the sum of the 3 angles. So a 3 dimensional triangle contains more than 180 degrees. 

What is interesting is that this triangulation was the methodology used to determine if the universe is finite or infinite. Using the temperature map of the cosmic background radiation they drew a triangle from earth to the edges of one of the "warmer" patches. If the universe was finite the sum of the angles would have been greater than 180 degrees because the curvature of the universe would be "observable" over those vast distances. The results of the triangulation was a consistent 180 degrees which proved that the universe is infinite. From those measurements it is possible to extrapolate that the entire space/time continuum is infinite in all dimensions.

So to address your question regarding the nature and/or powers of God you have to take into account what is both known and unknown. The historical fallacy is to assign human attributes and yes, that continues to this day. The attributes that the deity will "judge" and "reward/punish" based upon what mankind assumes to be "good" and "evil" are ridiculous when compared to a deity with the "powers" to "create" an infinite universe that encompasses "chaos". If the universe was "created" then it was by something that was completely and utterly inhuman and alien and way beyond what is currently "imagined" as "God".


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 20, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



As someone who is always open to learning about new ideas and concepts I am willing to admit to being intrigued enough to want to find out more about this. Please proceed with the lesson either in this thread or another or even via PMs if you prefer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You finally realized how rediculous your poll really was.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The important question was who inspired it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



 They have concluded the mapping of the Genome of Neanderthals and Aborigine's are closely related to neanderthals, Suggesting they interbred. Can't wait til the complete findings are released.

Nice theory though daws.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do "they" also maintain that Neanderthals existed 40,000 Years ago?

How is that possible when you insist the planet could not be that old?


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



As we see, Eddy likes to call people "know-it-all" then proceed to tell us all he knows. For instance, Eddy knows how old the Lake Mungo discoveries actually are, even though archeologists have disputed it since the discovery, with estimates ranging between 30-100k years. He also knows this was actually the very first time humans used red ochre in burial, and we were just lucky enough to have stumbled upon it. He also knows that it's impossible for cremation to ever be a form of spiritual ritual. And of course, he knows that humans have always treated men and women the same in death as they have in life, so why wouldn't they have buried the woman the same as the man? 

Now this profound example of genius wisdom, comes to us at over 3,000 posts in the thread, after every other argument he has presented, has been shot down and obliterated. 

That'll teach us to challenge his superior mind!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you really are as dense as you seem...
the poll was not ridiculous your answer was ! 
tell you what, you go out and poll 7 billion people and have you great grand children get back to me.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong as always slap dick, without accuracy the inspiration is meaningless ...failed attempt at evading the facts.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong again slap dick it's not a theory..
but then again neither is this  http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message772395/pg1


one is a steaming pile of pseudoscience and creationist dogma and the other is fact 
can you guess  which is which?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I never said Aborigine's were not 100% Homo Sapiens dip shit. I believe neanderthals and Aborigine's are 100% human. I believe they were all once isolated.

Funny they are believing now they all came out of the middle east supporting the bible so called myth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Daws can you comprehend english ?

I will not respond to your posts that you are seeming to have a problem understanding what was written.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Speaking of dense,you believe the rest of the population is gonna stay at the same percentage ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101, Youwerecreated;  _et al,_

Yes, interesting --- one of those interpretational things (it would seem).



daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


*(HYPOTHESIS)*

In biblical legend, angelic beings that are fiery or burning are called _(sometimes)_ Seraphim.

Who "inspired" it is a matter of "faith" _(not provable or disprovable)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 If you know how I feel about the dating methods why would I have to explain this to you ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 once again it's you belief that's false.
2.NOVA | Are Neanderthals Human?

3.Did the first humans come out of Middle East?
Modern man may have evolved in the Middle East rather than Africa, it has been claimed, after the discovery of remains said to be more than 400,000 years old. 
.  

560315TelegraphPlayer_8228030.
By Peter Hutchison
8:00AM GMT 28 Dec 2010
Israeli researchers claimed to have found eight human-like teeth in the Qesem cave near Rosh HaAyin, 10 miles from Israel's Ben Gurion airport. 

Archaeologists from Tel Aviv University said the teeth were 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, which would make them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered in the world. 

If true it overturns the belief that homo sapiens, the direct descendant of modern man, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. 

According to the Out of Africa theory, homo sapiens gradually migrated north, through the Middle East, to Europe and Asia between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago. 

But in recent years discoveries in Spain and China have also questioned the theory that man originated in Africa. 

The latest findings, published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, said the size and shape of the teeth were very similar to those of modern man. 

Prof Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University also found evidence of the use of fire, hunting, and the cutting and mining of raw materials to produce flint tools, which suggested a sophisticated form of society. 

They said further research was needed to solidify their claim but if proven it changes the whole picture of evolution. Did the first humans come out of Middle East? - Telegraph
  nowhere do the articles even hint at supporting the bible myth, that's you reading in what's not there.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws can you comprehend english ?
> 
> I will not respond to your posts that you are seeming to have a problem understanding what was written.


 then why did you respond....                                     wtf are you yammering about now ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How you feel about things is unimportant. Facts are important and you are clearly divorced from any recognition of facts. 

You're feelings about a 6,000 year old earth are laughable.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your answer, as always, has no relevance to the statement or anything else.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> daws101, Youwerecreated;  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, interesting --- one of those interpretational things (it would seem).
> 
> ...


thanks !YWC. does not understand that or why there is a need for accuracy.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you can't explain it rationally, you just make excuses that don't fit the facts.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Lake Mungo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Mungo Man was also discovered by Dr Bowler, on 26 February 1974.* The remains were covered with red ochre, in what is the earliest known incidence of such a burial practice.* Although some studies have estimated his age at more than 60,000 years,* the current consensus is that he is also about 40,000 years old.*


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


bump


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



My theory they are all humans that interbred they may have different features but that does not prove they are not human.

Over time it will be proven the origins of humans will be the middle east. I would say Israel because that was the promised land for the Israelites.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How many times must I point out the problems with the dating methods ? Believe as you wish.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you have a rich fantasy life..
it's funny how guys like you who make sweeping declarations are without fail, proven wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods  were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Then I apologize, but yes, I definitely had that impression.



Derideo_Te said:


> As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does *NOT* exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the *PAST* as well as the future. With an *INFINITE PAST* there is no "first moment" ever.
> 
> Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has *ALWAYS* existed in the *PAST* just as it will always exist in the future.



No, it is not just me, but aside from that....

You are simply plopping the entire infinite timeline into being with one fell swoop and saying ITs HERE, but we are in a time flow that does not accommodate such a model of time.

Lets look at Cartesian grid, say the X axis. Starting at 0 and going back toward an infinite limit is a process that never reaches the limit. To assume one could in real time, brings up what is often  referred to as 'infinite regression fallacy'. If we are modeling a real time span going back and not simply taking an abstract limit value all at one time we can never reach negative infinity since there is no point to arrive at. There is always at least one more. 

Similarly were we to go back in time in the real world, there is never a point in time that we reach negative infinity, because there is no final point. We would just go on for ever. 

Now, reversing this process, we see that we can never arrive at 0 from negative infinity because there is no starting point. There is always one point further back, and thus we can never reach 0 from a negative infinite limit.

In simpler terms, we can say that there is no plausible way to have points in the real time line if there is not beginning to the time line, which is what we have if the past recedes into an infinite unbeginning.


Hope that is clear.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There are several dating methods that can be used to coordinate the results.

Goofy conspiracy theories aren't going to help you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



will get back to this


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It only seems obvious to you because you have a _need_ to believe such nonsense.

An ancient planet earth creates a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables as precisely that: tales and fables.

Your religious fanaticism is driven by a need to protect your dogma. Considering how much you have to lose with the fact of an ancient planet, you are forced to blather on about biblical literalism. An ancient planet being true confirms evolution being true which in turn means there was no biblical Adam and Eve, magic snakes and fruit theft. No Adam and Eve means there is no original sin. No original sin negates any need for salvation. No need for salvation means there is no need for Heyzeus H. Christ or Christianity. This is why you fundies fight tooth and nail, using any means necessary to protect your dogma. 

Oh, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Here are a couple of articles to support my comments. There are other, more detailed and specific materials available but these provided a good overview.

Brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently


Why Homo sapiens won the battle of human survival: Neanderthals had larger eyes but less brain power to make decisions | Mail Online

So similarly, present the peer-reviewed data that supports the evidence for your claimed supernatural spirit worlds.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


even if it were..that's no proof your fantasy is correct or the only one besides evolution.
how hard is that to comprehend?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not at all. It implies that mankind wasnt capable of understanding what God was prior to that. If God exists, He would have existed entirely independently of the ability of early humanoids to believe in Him.



Hollie said:


> Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.



Well, you need to discuss that with YEC, which I am not.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Again, demonstrating your condescending bullshit.

It just never stops with you, but that is because you are too stupid to realize that you have lost.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


so your not the expert on everything you project yourself to be..
I kinda knew that already.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I do not project any such thing. I usually give links to my sources and I do not claim to be an authority.

Again, you stupidity betrays you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Good links, thanks. I have a Neanderthal Club on my FB page, and these look interesting.

You are interesting when you play nice.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it's not condescending or bullshit .
the stupidity is yours or willful ignorance. it's hard to tell with you guys.  
the facts: modern dating are not for any practical purposes flawed.
there is no evidence for a young earth.
there is no proof for or against the existence of a god or thousands of them. 
any theory that presupposes god is a false premise and not evidence.
faith in a god or gods is subjective and cannot and should not be argued as fact.  

get it.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


But if a constant rate of decay supported a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth you would accept that, yes?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, YOU don't get it. Dating can be flawed, and mistakes are often made that peer review fails to catch.

And there is evidence of God, but people determined to not recognize it can always come up with some hypothetical scenario to essplain things, from imaginary time to human beings just being lucky enough to win the Great Cosmic Dice Roll.

And in theology one starts with axioms or revelation as a starting point and it is no less rational than science is.

Short comings in scientific knowledge do not prove God, but the overwhelming 'fine tuned' nature of our universe make is not only plausible but highly probable. 

But no doubt you can find some other essplanation that you would prefer; ANYTHING other than GAWD! Now that is irrational.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 20, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*



			
				USGS said:
			
		

> The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Geologic Time: Age of the Earth



[ame="http://youtu.be/YltEym9H0x4"]Richard Feynman on God[/ame]​
I agree with Dr Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

BAck to the accuracy of carbon dating, if done right it is very accurate, but a lot of things have to be done right to get good numbers, and the scientist in question has to have enough integrity to not simply lie about it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud | Science | The Guardian


> History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud
> 
> Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries
> 
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> BAck to the accuracy of carbon dating, if done right it is very accurate, but a lot of things have to be done right to get good numbers, and the scientist in question has to have enough integrity to not simply lie about it all.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration
> 
> ...



Quite clearly, peer review is an important component in science. Science is a process of discovery that will assiduously test and challenge, theres a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. Peer review is a process whereby asserted claims are subjected to falsifiable tests, double blinds, etc. Those conditions do not exist in the Theistic environment. 

What is the process for peer review in connection with claims to gawds?

Regarding the fraud perpetrated by Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten:
Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com



> One might wonder how he got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Richard Feynman on God​
> I agree with Dr Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



Meh, I think doubt is good and useful in some areas of knowledge, a waste of time in others.

Who doubts a bus schedule for instance? How do you trust it to be up to date and accurate? How do you know some prankster didn't make an erroneous duplicate and switched it out? You don't know and it isnt worth the time to investigate before stepping on to the bus.  Why? Because maybe you have already found the schedule reliable, maybe you see other people that you have seen before and they are all going on the same route you have seen them board many times before, maybe maybe maybe.

Science cannot help us with this; you just follow the schedule and get on the damned bus.

The schedule is a source of information based on authority. Religion uses such authoritative claims as well, and it is not subject to testing in a laboratory. You cant put a piece of God in a test tube and see if He really is there.

The stock markets have millions of people investing in them, and do they KNOW these are good investments? Not necessarily at all. And yet it is valid to argue that investing in the stock markets is a wise thing to do. But science cant tell me if Wall Street's DJI average is going up or down tomorrow.

So scientific doubt is not appropriate when approaching many fields of knowledge and religion is one of them, though abstract reason can still be applicable and helpful. Seen through the lens of faith, the universe affirms God in a million ways, but to the person who never had that faith, none of it makes any sense.

That does not mean that a belief in God is irrational nor that those who hold this belief have never pursued their doubts. Many have had doubt and found answers that resonated with what they instinctively knew to be true and so their faith grew.

But the philosophical evidence in support of God existing and the spiritual existing is the weakest of bodies of evidence. The strongest is the affect that faith has on people, for example AA has faith in God at the very core of their therapy. Many other groups have tried to mimic AA but without God and faith and they all failed.

I see wine turned to water everyday among the former alcoholics I know and whose lives are now sober and productive and they got that way because God touched their lives, and He did so because these people asked Him to help them and He answered. I see it in all the hospitals and orphanages and universities that religion has established, though secularists have shanghaied many of them.

THAT is the real evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > BAck to the accuracy of carbon dating, if done right it is very accurate, but a lot of things have to be done right to get good numbers, and the scientist in question has to have enough integrity to not simply lie about it all.
> ...



YEs, when done right science is very reliable.

But one uses scientific methods to test scientific concepts. One uses rational religious tests for religious concepts. Science has no voice in religion any more than religious tests belong in science.

Science CANNOT affirm or test religious axioms. The discussion has to remain within the realm of theology and reason.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 20, 2013)

JimBowie1958,  daws101,  _et al,_

Yes, the process can be wrong.  That is what science is all about.  



JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, science really is not in the business of proving things.  

Isaac Newton, guessed and deduced a mathematical description for gravity.  It was held true for over 200 years until Einstein published.  The orbit of Mercury didn't fit Newtons description, but Einstein's work did.  It is not so much that Einstein was proven right, but that Newton was not _(his work was temporarily true)_.  

The question is sort of flawed.  We shouldn't be looking for "definitive proof" of a Supreme Being.  We look for true descriptions of the nature of the universe.  We look for evidence and explanations that account for the observations we make.  It leads us to some truth; or a step closer to a greater truth _(however temporary)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why are you only presenting evidence to show we became more intelligently advanced than Neanderthal? I don't think there is any dispute about this, is there? You were supposed to be proving our advanced intelligence enabled abstract thought which caused us to create spirituality. I'm not seeing the peer-reviewed data on that, when is it coming?


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



Spiritualism does not "demand" that spirits exist. It does allow the possibility of such phenomenon, and I don't know if spirits exist or not, my argument was for spiritual nature. I don't know why words are chosen to describe different things, there are various reasons, still, we don't automatically assume similar words support the same concept. 



> For a moment I may have confused you with Jimbowie, who in this thread states the very mind is a spirit. Looking back, I did not, but could easily have. Both of your assertions on spirits deserve more questions, with general respect.



Well I can't argue Jim's points, he will have to address this himself. I've not made a case for aberrations, which is what I am assuming you mean by "spirits" here, since you haven't defined them. I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?" I don't claim it can be seen or observed walking through the hallways after death, but I am also not saying this is impossible and cannot happen. 



> Your argument about ants and bees is interesting, but those creatures likely do their work due to instinct. I may be wrong, though, and that deserves as much fair research as it can get.  Boss, I take comfort in what I can know. Knowledge, not belief, is the surest foundation for one to rest on. If we leave our sturdy foundation of concrete knowledge, we march on the shifting sands of subjectivity, which may very well slow us down or drag us under.



Well we certainly call these things "instinct" but I am asking you to think a little deeper than mere definition. Do bees and ants use "senses" that humans don't possess? Yes or no? To presume the only senses available in all the universe, just happens to be our five, and that's it... is refuted on our very own planet with life we know of. It's not hard to imagine there might be dozens of senses that we simply don't have, so we aren't aware of. 



> I cannot believe what I can't discern. This is why I don't believe in spirits, or gods, or demons, or angels, or monsters, or legends, or aliens, etc. Actually, there may do exist "alien" life, if indeed Earth is not the only life-sustaining rock in all the planets, galaxies, universes...
> 
> It is nice discussing and debating with you, Boss. You've got me in a more inquisitive mood now. ;-)



Your mind operates under the impression that physical nature is all that can exist. That your five senses, are all that are available. At the risk of sounding like a sci-fi movie, what if we discovered an alien civilization, who had the ability to communicate through some kind of mental telepathy? Would the fact that we can't relate to this, and can't fully explain it, mean that it's not possible and we have to develop some excuse to explain it away? 

I cannot believe what I can't discern either, but I can discern that humans spiritually connect to something greater than self, and always have. If this were purely imaginary, there would be no evidence of tangible benefit, and the behavior would have disappeared long ago. It's not just the fact that humans connect spiritually, it's also that they get something profound out of it. You can't rationalize this without considering the possibility they are connecting to something outside the physical, which is present in our universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by  Kyle Butt, M.A. 


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous scientific evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this evidence are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several billion years (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements. He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts (2010, emp. added). Stobers implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they rely on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption was challenged by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, odd for supposed physical constants (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because were all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins points toward a conclusion that the sun is communicating with radioactive isotopes on Earth (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly communicate with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that it doesnt make any sense according to conventional ideas. Sturrock stated, Its an effect that no one yet understands. But thats what the evidence points to. Its a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too. More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (Claim CD004, 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.


CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been taught in classrooms and against what were all brought up to believe. Does our society never tire of discovering that the evidence for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years? 


Apologetics Press - New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You don't get it ,all dating methods are based on the rate of decay. You also have the amount of c-14 which is based on constant rate and how much c-14 is contained in the object. Same faulty assumption that has been proven to be wrong by the University of Standford and Purdue University.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> As someone who is always open to learning about new ideas and concepts I am willing to admit to being intrigued enough to want to find out more about this. Please proceed with the lesson either in this thread or another or even via PMs if you prefer.




experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response so I am a little surprised by your response and humbled because I believe you that you are sincere.

To respond appropriately I will need a little time to formulate a coherent and concise explanation and to climb the mountain of the Lord, so to speak, where I will learn what to say and how to say it and then, when I emerge from the Holy of Holies, again so to speak, I will show it to you.



In a little while I will start a new thread, *Keys to the Kingdom *,  so as to not take  any attention away from Boss and company continuing to make complete fools of themselves here...


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 20, 2013)

> > *Boss:* *I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?"* I don't claim it can be seen or observed walking through the hallways after death, but I am also not saying this is impossible and cannot happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





*Spiritual nature governs physical nature ... I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?"*


*... is this a "spirit?"*


assuredly so ... unlike your OP however the reverse is what has also been the allure of mankind - to see the physical proof of an Almighty to confirm the existence of their individual spirit / soul they hope may escape with their last breath.

or if the spirit of man has a physicality why would someone restrict an Almighty God from having a physical presence as well ... 

Like Newton, spiritual evidence though compelling is not proof in itself of a Creator of the Universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No because it has been proven to be a faulty assumption.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > > *Boss:* *I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?"* I don't claim it can be seen or observed walking through the hallways after death, but I am also not saying this is impossible and cannot happen.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



The OP argument states that you have to believe in spiritual nature to evaluate spiritual evidence, it does not say that spiritual evidence alone, can prove God. The believing in spiritual nature is important because there is no other way to rationalize 'spiritual existence' ...since 'existence' commonly means a physical state of existence. Those who don't believe in spiritual nature, can't rationalize spiritual existence, the term doesn't make rational sense. I know I keep repeating this point, but it is vitally important here. 

I have not stated that God, or any spiritual energy force, can't possibly manifest itself in physical form. I don't know this, and it's not my argument. I would imagine it possible, but I can't prove it. My argument is purely about human spiritual connection, and the fact that humans have always had this ability to connect with something greater than self, beyond 'physical' understandings (which are based on our five senses), and that this connection is not imaginary, but very real, and has produced results which billions of people are convinced were the result of spiritual forces.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Typical infantile response. Your failure to comprehend what was actually posted is always on display. Since no claim was ever made that the "universe is omnipotent" *YOU* are caught *LYING* again.


> and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that *our universe operates as a functional 'machine' *


Yet another of *YOUR LIES*. Nowhere is the claim made likening the universe to a 'machine'. Then again you probably don't even comprehend what a 'machine' actually is, either.


> to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.
> 
> Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.



Since *YOU* are *NOT* a man "of your word" there is never going to be any "deal", especially not on your bogus "terms". The onus will forever remain on *YOU* to prove the existence of your God first and foremost. This entire thread of yours is just a testament to *YOUR EPIC FAILURE* to do so. 

As far as the universe goes no "belief" is needed. The universe *EXISTS*. The space/time continuum *EXISTS*. Clowns like you can pretend that a "creator" was necessary but there is* ZERO EVIDENCE *of any such "creator". Try dealing with *REALITY* instead. It is much healthier.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
Typical infantile response. Your failure to comprehend what was actually posted is always on display. Since no claim was ever made that the "universe is omnipotent" *YOU* are caught *LYING* again.


> and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that *our universe operates as a functional 'machine' *


Yet another of *YOUR LIES*. Nowhere is the claim made likening the universe to a 'machine'. Then again you probably don't even comprehend what a 'machine' actually is, either.


> to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.
> 
> Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.


 
Since *YOU* are *NOT* a man "of your word" there is never going to be any "deal", especially not on your bogus "terms". The onus will forever remain on *YOU* to prove the existence of your God first and foremost. This entire thread of yours is just a testament to *YOUR EPIC FAILURE* to do so. 

As far as the universe goes no "belief" is needed. The universe *EXISTS*. The space/time continuum *EXISTS*. Clowns like you can pretend that a "creator" was necessary but there is* ZERO EVIDENCE *of any such "creator". Try dealing with *REALITY* instead. It is much healthier.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are wasting your time with daws. He isn't looking for facts about anything; he already knows everything.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 21, 2013)

hobelim said:


> experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response ...



go fuck yourself


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No, I am not caught lying, I read what you posted about the universe always existing, never ending, and thus, it must be omnipotent. If it never ends or begins, it's power is unlimited. Now you can do your little tapdance if you like, and pretend you meant something else, but I am going by what you said. 



> > and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that *our universe operates as a functional 'machine' *
> 
> 
> Yet another of *YOUR LIES*. Nowhere is the claim made likening the universe to a 'machine'. Then again you probably don't even comprehend what a 'machine' actually is, either.





> World English Dictionary
> *machine*  (m&#601;&#712;&#643;i&#720;n)
> _ n_
> 1.	an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force in order to perform useful work



It would appear, this definition fits your description of a perpetual universe. 




> > to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.
> >
> > Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Well you can bow up and be surly and snarky, I don't really care. I didn't say I wanted to make a deal with you, moron. I said clearly in the OP, that people who can't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, can't answer the question of god's existence, and by god, you've proven that true all through the thread. There is no "onus" on me to explain something to stupid people. You should have been able to read the OP and understand, you can't ever answer the question of god's existence, because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence. I can't make you do that, no matter how hard I try. 

REALITY is you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that the universe wasn't created. In fact, your theory of a perpetual universe, indicates you believe in God and the universe is God.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Only someone who is utterly *CLUELESS* as to the meaning of the term "omnipotent" would make such a stupid assumption.


> If it never ends or begins, it's power is unlimited. Now you can do your little tapdance if you like, and pretend you meant something else, but I am going by what you said.


No, *YOU* are actually going by *your own ignorance and stupidity* about the universe and the meaning of words in the English language.


> It would appear, this definition fits your description of a perpetual universe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> *
> 
> Well you can bow up and be surly and snarky, *


 at the IRONY!


> I don't really care. I didn't say I wanted to make a deal with you, moron. I said clearly in the OP, that people who can't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, can't answer the question of god's existence, and by god, you've proven that true all through the thread. *There is no "onus" on me to explain something to stupid people.*


That explains why can't even explain it to yourself either.



> You should have been able to read the OP and understand, you can't ever answer the question of god's existence, because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence. I can't make you do that, no matter how hard I try.
> 
> REALITY is you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that *the universe wasn't created.* In fact, your theory of a perpetual universe, indicates you believe in God and the universe is God.


The *EVIDENCE* is that the universe *EXISTS* and the *Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS*. Together that *NULLIFIES* any need for *YOUR* superstitious "creation myth".

Why are* YOU* so *DESPERATE* to distort everything to fit your *FUNDAMENTALIST CREATIONIST BELIEFS*? Are you really that* INSECURE *in your own beliefs that you are forced to impose them on others?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 21, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response ...
> ...






When you are on your knees in church, do you  let the priest put the flesh of his mangod right into your mouth or do you hold it in your hand ??

Do you swallow right away or do you let is get all soft in your mouth first?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.
> 
> New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods
> 
> by  Kyle Butt, M.A.



Kyle Butt? What a joke!

As expected from YWC, his source is a religious fundie who has no formal training in any of the sciences he blathers on about. 

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |



> Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.



How does a degree in _Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament..._ qualify this loon as an authority on dating methods? 

Is this a bad joke?

This is a typical pattern that oozes from the creationist ministries. Its so often that phony creationist with phony degrees (or degrees not at all associated with the field of study they rattle on about),  offer opinions that they have no business offering. Its laughable that fundies will post these embarrassing lapses of credibility but as we know, fundies are far less interested in facts than they are pressing their dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.
> 
> Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis



Oh yeah. AIG. Now there's a reliable source.

From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website




> Section 1: Priorities
> &#9726;The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
> &#9726;The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...




Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.

Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.


*Behind the Scenes at the Creation Museum*

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb



> One of the Creation Museums more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noahs Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation Museums bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the museum. Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.
> ...



Are you really this dense ? the facts are that the decay rate has been shown to be a faulty assumption which blows up the dating methods.

You can find anything you want to spin the evidence but you can't spin the facts on this.

Did you not consider his sources from two major universities that proved the decay rate is a bad assumption. Did you consider the ex-evolutionist that shared why he no longer holds the old earth view ? no,of course you havn't because you just refuse to accept it and choose to remain ignorant of the facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.
> ...



Kinda like your sources you copy and paste from to Ad nauseam. Hollie, take a hike dummy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2013)

> The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".



Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.

Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As expected, you're hopelessly inadequate at actually defending your nonsensical young earth creationist drivel.

Did you see the part about Ken Ham proposing there was a fire breathing dragon on Noah's Ark????

Its a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. Every theory of ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the brain-dead Kool Aid drinkers who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their goofy creationist arguments are valid alternatives.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.
> 
> Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.



As expected, no defense of silly creationist claims to magic. 

That would be due to the fact that magic is indefensible in the realm of reason and rationality. 

So much for fire breathing dragons on Noah's Ark.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



There are more than one assumption that is in error.

Radiometric dating









Mass spectrometer used to determine the proportions of isotopes contained in a sample of igneous rock.

Radiometric dating utilizes the decay rates of certain radioactive atoms to date rocks or artifacts. Uniformitarian geologists consider this form of dating strong evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. But new research by creationists has revealed a large number of problems with radiometric dating. In some cases such as Carbon-14 dating, radioactive dating actually gives strong evidence for a young Earth. Other methods such as Potassium-argon dating and Isochron dating are based on faulty assumptions and so unreliable as to be useless. 



Contents
 [hide]1 Basic principles
2 Assumptions 2.1 Challenging the assumption of original composition
2.2 "Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils"

3 Types of Radiometric Dating
4 Problems
5 Common Decay Series
6 References
7 Further reading
8 News


 Basic principles 



Parent and daughter isotopes commonly used to establish ages of rocks.

Many atoms (or elements) exist as numerous varieties called isotopes, some of which are radioactive, meaning they decay over time by losing particles. Radiometric dating is based on the decay rate of these isotopes into stable nonradioactive isotopes. To date an object, scientists measure the quantity of parent and daughter isotope in a sample, and use the atomic decay rate to determine its possible age. 

For example, in the 238U-206Pb series, 238U is the parent isotope and the others are daughter isotopes. 206Pb is the final daughter isotope and the one assayed in radiometric dating. 

In order to calculate the age of the rock, geologists follow this procedure: 
1. Measure the ratio of isotopes in the rock. 
2. Observe the rate of radioactive decay from the mother to the daughter isotope. 
3. Calculate the time required for the mother isotope to produce all the observed daughter isotope, according to this formula: 

t = \frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left ( 1 + \frac{D}{P} \right ) 

where: 
t is the age of the specimen; 
D and P are the numbers of daughter and parent isotope today; 
&#955; is the decay constant for the parent atom. 

The decay constant has dimensions of reciprocal seconds. In the special case in which parent and daughter atoms are present in equal quantities, the age of the specimen is the half-life of the parent isotope: 

t^{1/2} = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda}[1] 

Half-life (t1/2) is the amount of time required for one-half of the nuclei in a radioactive sample to decay into another kind of nucleus. [2] 

 Assumptions 

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are: 
1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start. 
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system). 
3. A constant decay rate.[3] 

 Challenging the assumption of original composition 

The first assumption, that the amount of the daughter isotope in the original rock is known, is the weakest assumption. For example, K-Ar dating assumes that there was no argon in the original rock. But if there was argon in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high. 

To understand this, recall the above formula. The greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age. 

The proportion of argon to radioactive potassium in the sample today is observable, and the decay constant of potassium is readily calculable by measuring the amount of argon produced from the decay of 40K after a specified time. But the age of the rock and the proportion of argon to radio-potassium in the sample originally are not observable. As any first-year student of algebra soon learns, a single equation with two unknown variables cannot be solved. In fact, the above formula is far too simple, because it assumes that the amount of daughter isotope was zero at start. The formula below is a proper model that admits the possibility that some daughter isotope was present when the rock formed: 

t = \frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left ( 1 + \frac{D - D_0}{P} \right ) 

where D0 is the amount of daughter isotope present at start. In order to simplify the formula, scientists generally assume that igneous rock contains no argon when it forms, because the argon, being a noble gas, would escape from the cooling lava. 

This assumption has been repeatedly falsified. Fresh volcanic rock is routinely found to have argon in it when it first cools.[4][5] In these cases, lava of a known age of no more than several thousand years (and in one case, no more than ten years) had argon in it when it formed, so that the rock was calculated by K-Ar dating to be millions of years old, even though it was known to be only thousands of years old. 

 "Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils" 

Numerous fossils have been found in strata inconsistent with the evolutionary model of Earth's history.[6] These out of place fossils would seem to pose a problem for radiometric dating methods which are still calibrated based on the position of fossils (relative dates) in the geologic column. However, these fossils are not problematic if one simply disregards their existence. 

If the date generated by isotope dating analysis agrees with the conventional interpretation of the geological column, paleontologists will accept it as valid. A date that disagrees with that interpretation is dismissed as an anomaly. This is not an example of malfeasance, but rather the result of assuming that the theory of evolution has been proved reliable, and therefore these seeming anomalies are due to contamination or other causes of analytical error. These out of place fossils or rocks are not considered a reason to question the theory. This makes independent testing of these dating methods impossible, since published discrepant dates are rare.[7] 

 Types of Radiometric Dating 
Carbon-14 dating: Uses the ratio of 14C to 12C to determine the age of biological remains. Contrary to popular belief, Carbon-14 dating gives solid evidence for a young Earth.[8] 
Helium diffusion: This dating method, developed by creationists, is based on the rate of Helium diffusion from zircons, which gives many rocks a maximum age of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years.[9] 
Uranium-Lead dating 
Potassium-argon dating: K-Ar dating was used for a long time despite being challenged by creationists for its faulty assumptions and data. It is no longer defended as reliable, even by uniformitarian geologists, because it is entirely dependent on the assumption that igneous rocks never have any argon when they initially cool, and that assumption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false as igneous rock of known age has been "dating" to ages far older than its actual age, because there was Argon in it when it formed.[4][5] 
Concordia dating: Concordia dating rests on the same assumptions as K-Ar, namely that there was none of the daughter isotope (in this case Lead) in the sample when it originally cooled. Like the assumption in K-Ar, however, this assumption is also unfalsifiable, making this method equally unreliable.[10] 
Isochron dating: Isochron dating was introduced as an attempted substitute for K-Ar dating, after K-Ar's faulty assumptions were exposed. However, isochron dating bears faulty assumptions of its own. It assumes the homogeneity of the sample when it originally formed, an assumption which is always false in whole rocks, and unfalsifiable in minerals.[11] 

 Problems 
Main Page: Radiometric dating problems 
Creationists have responded to this challenge in varying ways and cited numerous problems with radiometric dating. Creationists admit that there is significant evidence of daughter isotopes well in excess of what could be generated by decay at contemporary observed rates within the timescale they contend to be true. 

Some have proposed that the errors could be attributable to excess original daughter isotopes (though isochron dating methods minimize this) and accelerated decay caused by external phenomena. While astronomers have found that magnetars emit radiation that could cause bouts of accelerated decay, and that these bouts may be more common than originally thought, the amount of heat produced by the radiation during the short period presents a problem for creationists. 

A more common approach is to allow for accelerated nuclear decay during the early portion of terrestrial history, when those elements which decay naturally were buried far below the crust (or far below the waters of the global flood, in some models), therefore dealing with the heat problem. One possibility for the accelerated decay comes with the possibility of variable speed of light. Other theories simply hypothesize that during certain periods of time God sped up the process; these are called singularities in creation science. 

In addition to the above methods of dealing with this challenge, creationists have contended a whole raft of problems with both the older and newer methods of radiometric dating. They cite several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years, such as at Mt. Ngauruhoe[12] and Mt. St. Helens.[4] John Woodmorappe claims that discrepancy in data is prevalent, and accuses scientists of throwing out most of the inaccurate results, giving the illusion of accuracy. He also indicates how mixed families of rock can give anomalous isochron readings, some of which would indicate a negative age for certain rocks. His book, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, documents approximately 200 quotes by secular geologists indicating problems with the various dating methods. 

 Common Decay Series 
Main Article: Radioactive decay  Samarium-Neodymium. (Sm-Nd) 
 Rhenium-Osmium (Re-Os) 
Uranium/Thorium-Lead. (U/Th-Pb) 
 Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr) 
Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar) 
Argon-Argon (Ar-Ar) 
 Lutetium-Hafnium (Lu-Hf) 
Carbon-Carbon (14C-12C) 

Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Explain to me how the guy in the video from answersingenesis that you took a shot at. He took a piece of rock and at the time it was 11 years old this was from Mt st helens. All the dating methods were all over and did not match each other. Then knowing the rocks age which was 11 years old the youngest age was 330,000 years old and the oldest was 3.3 million years old. Can you explain problems such as these ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


theology like belief in a invisible friend  are by definition not rational..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Kyle Butt

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc. 
another non credible source (cue buzzer ) thanks for playing.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.
> 
> Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis


holy shit a testimony.... from a creationist site....how NOT evidence that is...
 still have no clue what a false premise is, do you.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


no not everything...just enough to point out the major flaws in deity belief.
in actuality  i'm a the more you learn the less you know kinda guy.
you guys on the other hand.......


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.
> ...



I notice you didn't respond to his evidence nor did your buddy hollie.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


kinda gives the term "taking the sacrament" a whole new dimension...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


because it's not evidence..see false premise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It was the sources the man used


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.
> 
> Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.


bhahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How is it a false premise him sending in rocks with a known age to see what age is placed on these rocks using these so called accurate dating methods ?

You really like making shit up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


edited for pseudoscience content.... and religious bias.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We have been discussing the same exact things that is carried out by your side lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Please point out the pseudoscience content and be specific.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


only in your dreams...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...


all of it!
Plus the religious bias!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.


how would you know what cock breath smells like?
Speaking from experience are we?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Common Decay Series
> Main Article: Radioactive decay  Samarium-Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
> Rhenium-Osmium (Re-Os)
> Uranium/Thorium-Lead. (U/Th-Pb)
> ...



Have you ever considered why it is that the entirety of your posting is derived from fundamentalist Christian ministries as opposed to reputable, peer reviewed science sources?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Common Decay Series
> ...


jackpot!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> > The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything.* Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.*


Prove it!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".
> ...


this could take awhile how bout some pizza?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I've got some baking in my oven as we speak.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".
> ...



Self evident. By laws of conservation of matter, physical nature couldn't have. Two options remain: The universe has always been, and thus, is God... or... Spiritual nature created the physical universe.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".
> ...





http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfY7L30aCC4mP0CUzUWS_Y_bSW1rYZ6gwNotxhfCpeHonHvs5d


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Common Decay Series
> ...



 Uh maybe it's because I believe in creation and not naturalism.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 21, 2013)

hobelim said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.
> ...



Don't know I just figured with all that slapdick talk it must lead to something else.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Common Decay Series
> ...



Oh and Hollie this is a lie, I have spoken on mutations and what I observed in the lab. Hell I have even given you my own theory why we see change within a family and I believe the science community agrees with me and if you had taken much science you would have to. Where we disagree is on the large scale evolution which is called Macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".
> ...



If it was not created by a superior intelligence by all means demonstrate how it came in to existence !


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm not the one making the claim.

However matter is a form of energy and it has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Well anyways everyone have a great weekend,you to dick breath.

I will be waiting on that explanation on the origins of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ok energy and matter has always existed now how did it produce life ?

I believe God has always existed I would be foolish to disagree that energy and matter has always existed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

God redirected energy and matter, this makes a whole lot more sense then it just happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Let's take matter absent of life and produce life, hmm We have a problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 21, 2013)

Let's take living organisms and produce more living organisms this can be done hmm.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





hobelim said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





edthecynic said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So, I answer the question, and instead of responding to my answer, you two butt munchers start chortling back and forth like giddy little school girls, pretending I can't answer your question? Save your little cartoons for when they are relevant. 

A Ed says, it is physically impossible that physical nature created the matter of the universe. Didn't happen... couldn't happen! Two other options remain, and both indicate spiritual nature. Either the universe is omnipresent and omnipotent, which makes the universe, God... or... A spiritual force created matter. Take your pick, but physical nature did not create matter, you've said so yourself.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 21, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> *Ed says, it is physically impossible that physical nature created the matter of the universe. Didn't happen... couldn't happen!* Two other options remain, and both indicate spiritual nature. Either the universe is omnipresent and omnipotent, which makes the universe, God... or... A spiritual force created matter. Take your pick, but physical nature did not create matter, you've said so yourself.


You are such a pathological liar, I said no such thing. That was YOUR idiotic pontification, don't pass your bullshit on to me.

Here is what I said:



edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That means that energy has always existed (cannot be created/can't increase) and will always exist (cannot be destroyed/can't decrease) in the same total quantity.

It is impossible for a spirit to create energy, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and matter is a form of energy. Therefore it is self evident that the physical precedes the spiritual. You have it ass backwards, as usual.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



At least you don't bother hiding your stupid bigotry, bitch


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



He's too good to answer your question; who do you think you are?

lol


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well, pizza would be a step up for you, no doubt.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So "energy" is omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm glad I could help you and Dorito find God.



> It is impossible for a spirit to create energy, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and matter is a form of energy. Therefore it is self evident that the physical precedes the spiritual. You have it ass backwards, as usual.



What it would be, is a violation of *your conceptions* of the first law of thermodynamics. Nothing in science has ever proven to be "impossible" and you should learn that if you are going to use science to make arguments. It's not self-evident that physical precedes spiritual, because spiritual energy created the physical. Everything you point to, tells us this. Your own theories negate the possibility of physical nature creating the universe, matter is energy and can't be created, or energy is omnipotent and omnipresent, which makes it God. Neither case disproves spiritual energy, and both support the argument for it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...



Slapdick and condescension is all these idiots have any more.

The scientific community is getting totally embarrassed these days.

They claimed the world was over-heating and we would all die in a boiling planet if we didn't stop putting more CO2 in the atmosphere and de-industrialize. Ooops, we haven't slowed down growth in CO2 levels and temperatures have been stagnant for the last 15 years.

They claimed that LENR could not work for various reasons, but guess what? IT WORKS and it turns out that we have missed two decades of funded research on LENR because the scientific establishment is more fond of the research money for hot fusion than they are of advancing science and technology.

How  long did these bastards oppose truthful scientific research and new ideas by trying to humiliate and ostracize fair minded scientists for proposing that continents drift, that evolution is not gradual and uniform, that heavier than air flight is possible, and more?

The best thing that could happen for scientific research is to take control of the funding from the so-called scientists who are really just bureaucrats and give it to a committee formed from 20 names randomly chosen from a fucking phone book.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Which is no worse than your anti-religious bias.

But you being a fucking idiot makes it far worse.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone that saw you spin and lie to try and hide your ignorance.
> ...



You are a fucking liar and you have been lying and twisting posts from the start of this thread.

No one owes you  anything here after all your ignorant, monkey-shit-throwing hate for religion you have posted.

Civilization advances anyway, in spite of sycophantic dimwits like you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



YWC, do you see that this puissant isn't going to discuss anything with you? He will not answer your questions as he is a conceited narcissist .


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.
> ...



Yes, you are, whore.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Common Decay Series
> ...



Are you too stupid to realize the tautology you have presented? People who propose disruptive advances in science are almost always considered not reputable.

You are the epitome of what is wrong with the scientific establishment. We need more scientists who can actually think independently and do good research and not frauds like you who always have to hide behind the consensus you imagine you have.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.
> ...



though you are dumb as a bag of rocks, at least you are capable of refuting your own straw men.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Except that I am not speaking of an invisible friend, you liar.

dawes, you are pretty fucking stupid, but one day you  might wake up and realize that you are not doing much more than any well trained monkey can do.

But the good news is that you and your fellow haters and liars are going to lose, and you will likely die an isolated, friendless failure...as you deserve.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What a shame that your arguments are as ineffective and pointless as those of the other Christian fundie.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh my. I've noticed a pattern of behavior among the more excitable of the creationist. They get their limited knowledge of science from Christian fundamentalist websites.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Energy is a PHYSICAL entity which can be measured. You have just made the spiritual and God, physical and therefore no longer spiritual.
Thank you

The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment, therefore you cannot just pontificate that it is not impossible to create or destroy energy. You must set up a repeatable experiment that proves it is possible to create or destroy energy. Until then you are full of shit.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ah. Spiritual nature created the universe because it works by magic, without any consideration of the known physical laws. 

How convenient.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sure, which is why your (Christian fundamentalist arguments for magic), are utter failures.

The simple solution is to require the IDiots to publish their work for peer review and to provide the relevant science community an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. As we have seen, creationist dont provide such publications. What little they do publish amounts to reiteration of biblical tales and fables. 

All the phony re-labeling of creationism as ID has been an total failure. The requirements for proving claims and assertions are a shared burden by both the science community and creationist.  Christian fundies wish to grant themselves an exception / exemption from the standards of proof, convincing themselves that magical gawds fall under the because I say so, weasel.  Creationist are not doing science by insisting that "the gawds did it" and then supplying nothing to support the contention of "gawd" at all. It's simply a dead end. And ID is the same dead end-- it's simply calling god something else.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh and YWC, I got a chuckle reading of your observations and your theory. Your observations and theories have been shown to be nothing more than cut and pasted quotes that you mine from Christian fundie websites and Harun Yahya. As you know, these quotes have been exposed by me as frauds, and lies.

What is laughable about the creationist argument is the insistence that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the origination of new biological forms either during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, or at any time in earth history and therefore the Christian gawds are proven. All of that is lies and falsehoods invented by creationist. 

That term -- "materialistic" -- is what SCIENCE is founded upon. Magical creation by gawds is asserting something outside the realm of what science considers SCIENCE. We see with regularity that Christian fundies appeal only to ignorance and superstition in their claims to magical gawds, a 6,000 year old earth and their continued falsification and lies as they attempt to persuade the gullible and the ignorant.  "Substandard", lies  and falsification leaps out at me regarding the magical gawds argument -- and I simply have to read your arguments and the lies and falsehoods you have posted to confirm that. 

It's very easy for creationists or IDiots to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a _correlation_. Then the IDiots / creationist will have something worth reviewing.

Personally, I for one would welcome it.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). IDiosy asserts a supernatural cause and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie why do you avoid the questions I ask you ?  Yes a creationist have different presuppositions and they will interpret evidence differently because of these presuppositions but the key is who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

I was not always a creationist so like creationist and not all creationist mind you we have somewhat of a clue to ask you. When you avoid a perfectly legitimate question and make the comment pseudoscience or some other bigoted comment or try to attack the creationist credentials to avoid that question you just lost all your credibility.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have told you I am a creationist not an intelligent design advocate though I do agree with intelligent design advocates in some areas I agree more with the creationist.

I am trying to get you to answer the same question how did naturalism take matter absent of life and produce life ? we Don't know How God did it but we can see purposeful design.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You mean mountains of conjecture and poor assumptions. Your dating methods are flawed and that kills the theory by itself. You have no viable mechanism for evolution. Your fossil record is built on a vivid imagination. You can't follow the scientific method with this theory. That is just a few but major problems for your theory.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I think you sweepingly miss the presentation of your ignorance. You don't ask questions as much as you cut and paste goofy conjecture from creationist hacks.

Its always comical when creationist use melodrama in failed attempts to disguise their lack of training and qualifications in connection with science.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda. 

That further causes me to question your credibility as your willingness to take such a firm stand on a subject to which you admit ignorance is really strange.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There is no viable mechanism for evolution? So the fact of "evolution" is dismissed because of what, your goofy conspiracy theories? 

Feel free to promote your uncompromising hatred of knowledge and science but don't expect others to accept your ignorance as anything but religious fanaticism. 

As we see with regularity, you sidestep and dodge all challenges to creationist dogma. You retreat from addressing the science fact because absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, youre hopelessly inept at challenging the science data.

Your loathing for science causes you to make yourself quite the buffoon. As we know, the creationist argument revolves around stupid  theres no other way to describe it  attempts to vilify and discredit science. In the twisted creationist mindset, denigrating science is seen as the mechanism to promote their gawds.

That is entirely a reflection on you. There is no reason to suspect that the rest of the world shares your limitations. Fear and superstition are generally not the most reliable motivations for good decision making. Neither of them is based on reason, instead relying on the baser human instincts and emotions rather than the higher human gifts of intellect. 

If these were the methods the gawds wanted us to use in making decisions, they would have been better off making us cattle rather than human beings. 

One cannot help but feel that since the actual concept of gawds is impossible to logically reconcile, the real motivation for gawds as instruments of coercion is found elsewhere; It is the product of human beings trying to control other human beings with fear. 

Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You dont really know what you are. Your silly " we can see purposeful design" comment is nonsense. Unless you're willing to acknowledge bad design, failed design, massive waste, absence of design, etc., as "design", you will need to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Few fundies, even the most fundamentalist of fundies are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their foundations can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various  fundie creation ministries  are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily sold on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science. 

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You must be daws evade and use bigoted tactics. Screw you either respond to me as a person or stfu.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What is your mechanism that is beyond reproach ?

Stay focused or stfu.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No not  bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Many creationist like myself have a strong background in science so stop your stupid comments address my questions or move along how fucking hard is that to comprehend.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suppose when your arguments are indefensible, youre forced to behave like a child who has been scolded and sent to his room.

Your hope has always been (and still is) to hold up the argument of your designer gawds as a genuine syllogism of a claim worthy of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously by the relevant science community. The fact that you hold on to the lies, deceit and demonstrably false arguments of creationist, in spite of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you. 

You _want_ it to be useful, even though it sadly is not. 

You insist that you know with certainty that your gawds, exclusively, are responsible for all of the natural world we know. Ill take you at your word regarding your intent. I try never to attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by ignorance.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> No not  bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?




Simple explanation? Perhaps, but one that only a simpleton could accept.


All living things that have ever existed and will ever exist on this planet are born and die.

It has always been this way.

The death consequent to sin described in the fairy tale is the inability to produce a coherent and rational thought so perfectly displayed by you in your obstinate stupidity against accepting all the available facts related to the irrefutable evidence of the geological record of the evolution of all species..

The sweat of your brow, thinking, produces only thorns and thistles.

If you do not cleanse your mind of every trace of falsehood you will never know what it is to be a living being.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Pointless post again.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Many creationist are simply religious zealots with no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about. 

You are the stereotypical example of someone with no background in the sciences you hope to denigrate. Your cutting and pasting from such hacks as Harun Yahya and the various creation ministries is an example of that.

Would you care to explain how Kyle Butt is qualified to provide a comprehensive explanation of carbon / radiometric dating methods?

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc. 


What a joke.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Kyle Butt

As youd expect, Butt is an ludicrously insane young earth creationist who claims to have (conclusive) evidence for the flood. Unfortunately, Butts ability to distinguish evidence from imagination is less than fully developed, and his reasoning skills are not quite impeccable either. 

Here is his own argument that since science has made mistakes before  giving one example of a (putative) mistake that science itself corrected  the Bible is an accurate portrayal of verifiable reality, and the idea that scientific findings trump every other source of information is simply false. As he so eloquently puts it: information in science books changes from year to year. [] Yet the biblical text has stood for centuries. Its integrity has surpassed that of any book ever printed. And the scientific information in it coincide perfectly with all factual data. Assigning the (putative) unchanging commands of the Bible to dogma and confirmation bias in the face of falsifying evidence apparently doesnt cross his mind. And all gaps in knowledge are evidence for the existence of God. There are some comments on his work here, and here.


Together with one Eric Lyons, Butt wrote Dinosaurs Unleashed: A True Story Of Dinosaurs And Humans, which is, needless to say, not a true story. It is picked apart in some detail here. Butt has also penned an interesting treatise; see comment 18 in this link) called Defending the Bibles Position on Slavery.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > No not  bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?
> ...



Simpleton ? you see entropy all around you dumbshit.

Then you can respond to my questions otherwise you can take a hike as well. I am tired of morons coming in and speaking from their ass.

Shit or get off the pot.

Defend your faith or fuck off.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What's noted is you inability to offer a rebuttal. 

Such are the failings of creationist who, absent a handy cut and paste from Harun Yahya, are left to wallow in their own incompetence and ineptitude.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Ok you are just to stupid to see the sources the guy used which were from your side comical yes.

Hollie take me on , I am the one challenging you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Explain how matter absent of life produces life then try to convince me it's a view not held by faith.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Such are the dangers of fundamentalist creationist. Their arguments have failed, they have no challenge to science fact and so are left behave like petulant children.

So, aside from your juvenile potty mouth, you're really just hopelessly unable to offer a coherent thought.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

You people are to fucking stupid to defend the theory you hold dear.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are no challenge... except to depths of ignorance.

And still, you have run away from addressing a single post I've offered refuting your fallacious, claims, lies and falsehoods.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Evade much !


----------



## hobelim (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





Yes simpleton. 

You are the one who associated entropy with the concept of sin related to a bronze age fairy tale intended to educate bronze age children whose level of intelligence seems to have been far above yours.


Grow up or fuck off yourself.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You people are to fucking stupid to defend the theory you hold dear.



They've been defended. 

You're a failure at addressing any of the refutations to your creationist fantasies and lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You never addressed the faulty assumptions presented I am waiting !

You have not offered how non-living matter could become life !


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not at all. 

Try addressing any of the refutations I've offered to your fallacious claims.

All we have from you are childish tantrums and juvenile name-calling.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Already did respond to your rebuttal there is not just one faulty assumption but several.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dinosaurs Unleashed - EvoWiki

Dinosaurs Unleashed: The True story of Dinosaurs and Humans is a young earth creationist publication written by Kyle Butt and Eric Lyons and published in 2004 by Apologetics Press. NOT a true story.

Rebuttal 

This is to be more as Dinosaurs Unleashed: The UN-true Story of Dinosaurs and Humans than anything else because these men are lying here. If what the 2 YECs, Kyle Butt and Eric Lyons who made this newest fantasy book is exactly what they claim to be, then we would have seen evidences of dinosaurs and humans found mixed together in the fossil record along with skins and bones made into tools and jewelry, wagons, bridals, leashes, and barns big enough to house them, and real valid authentic images, writings and figures carved exactly by the ancients of long ago as seen in Dinotopia and other forms of science fiction literature, but none are found! 

Knowing that dinosaurs poses a major problem for them and their teachings, they realized there are 3 options to consider. 

1. Acknowledged and accept the true dinosaur record, which tells us that dinosaurs did lived and died before humans were around (Good Idea.). 
2. Deny their existence (Bad idea). 
3. Lie about them! Say that dinosaurs lived with man at one point in time (Even Worse.). 

Unfortunately, YECs like Ham, Morris, and Hovind chose 3 as their option, Lie about them; Say that dinosaurs lived with man at one point in time and cram them all within their faulty interpretations of the Bible, falsely call them âGod's Wordâ and tell it like it is. They would take certain verses, they think best fits dinosaurs, out of text, like they do in quotes and images, and twisted them around to fit their beliefs about it. If that's called sheer dishonesty as well as blasphemy when they used the Lord they deliberately put into a box as a pawn to help win converts to their group, then I don't know what it is.


----------



## theword (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I can easily see that you don't speak from "Christ". Saints don't need to use this kind of language to speak for God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

When you start responding to my questions we will continue.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Still evading ! have a good day butt sore.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

theword said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I am not worthy to be a saint nitwit. I am not speaking for God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Yeah I am just responding in a way you ignorant fucks would understand.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Subject to which of the many different bibles you choose to read, you will get explanations for many things. Many of those explanations are comically wrong, inept or seriously flawed. 

I for one am grateful that there are still some unsolved mysteries, because solving them is what causes science to gain credibility and to give its practitioners such great satisfaction. 

But your position seems unable to account for all the mysteries that are no longer mysterious, or all the paradoxes that have been resolved. We actually know vast amounts about the universe that we didn&#8217;t know just a few decades ago. Oddly, so many of the mysteries of the natural world and of the universe have been solved by science. It is creationist who are promoting ignorance, fear and superstition as a means to defend their dogma. 

You are among the more excitable wavers of your pom poms for promoting such ignorance, fear and superstition.

How's that working out for you?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Yeah I am just responding in a way you ignorant fucks would understand.



Yet another juvenile and ignorant response from the creationist who uses childish name-calling to defend his dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> When you start responding to my questions we will continue.



I see. You exempt yourself from defending the nonsense you promote, (lies, falsehoods and unsupported claims), yet you expect to be taken seriously with your silly demands that others address your nonsensical conspiracy theories.

And you wonder why your creation ministries are a laughing stock?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Feeling lucky step up to the plate and put your big boy pants on.

We can cover;
1. Origins
2. Genetics
3. Biochemistry
4. Cells at the Molecular level

All of which covers origins through creation or naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > When you start responding to my questions we will continue.
> ...



 Step up to the plate.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So explain to us how, in the creationist model, humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

Defend a 6,000 year old earth... just spare us the cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

A basic (and false) assumption you make is over the "argument from authority" style you are accustomed to spewing. The stereotypical creationist argument, as we see repeatedly from you is nothing more than: here is a one-liner quote from "scripture"; here is what it "obviously" means; now shut up, fuck off, or go to hell. What a compelling argument!

Christian creationists are identical to Harun Yahya in the way they assume biologists treat academic papers as "scripture", and think they are accomplishing something by quoting a one-liner. Frequently, appeals to authority, such as infallible bibles, is a convenient shortcut if you don't care enough about a subject to perform some investigation for yourself: so I leave it up to you, to take the word of Harun Yahya as the ultimate authority regarding science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > When you start responding to my questions we will continue.
> ...



I am eagerly awaiting your explanation on how randomly shaped and distributed chemicals were organized, and concentrated, and combined into the first living bacterial cell ? How can eukaryotic cells or cells with a nucleus could have come from bacteria ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well honestly, you will need to cut and paste something from Harun Yahya that provides a reasonable argument for the existence for your gawds before you can make an argument (copy and paste one from Harun Yahya), regarding asupernatural "creation".

Identify the hierarchy of creator / designer gawds who created your gawds. I'm under no obligation to accept claims of supernatural gawds as a prerequisite for your claims to supernatural creation.

Or, just hurl a few more vulgarities as your argument crashes to the ground in flames.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have stated I have no Idea how old the earth is. Now respond to my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Dodge !


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What is a "randomly shaped chemical"?

I am eagerly awaiting your development of some basic understanding of science and biology before you post terms you are clueless about.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie why do you waste so much time let's take a look at the facts and see if design or naturalism is a more viable theory.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I knew it would be. 

You have never offered a reasonable and verifiable explanation for how the creators of your designer gawds created your particular gawds.

You insist that your gawds are presumed true and thus, your claims to supernaturalism are true.

That may work with those... ignorant and superstitious folks just like you but in the rational world where arguments are required to be defended with facts, you're just the stereotypical fundie.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




yes, scripture teaches that sin brings death and the subject of that death has nothing whatever to do with biological death or entropy but everything to do with the inability of the deceived mind to produce a rational thought.

Why does everything experience entropy?

Who can say? But one thing for sure is that it isn't because a talking snake deceived two naked and gullible people into eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie why do you waste so much time let's take a look at the facts and see if design or naturalism is a more viable theory.



You consistently avoid providing any mechanism whereby we can validate your claims to supernatural gawds.

How is magic a viable theory for anything?

Come on.  Hurl some more juvenile vulgarities. It makes your arguments just that more laughable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Polar spherical triangle for one.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



On the contrary, you actually have stated what you believe the age of the planet is.

This is the problem you face: you lie from page to page of the thread, forgetting what you have previously posted.

Where is the evidence for a young planet? Where is the evidence that refutes the verifiable science pointing to an old planet?

There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians) who will forever insist that such evidence does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself. 

The relevant segment of the science community consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology, paleontology and other physical sciences. And they consider a 4.5+/- billion year old earth to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that supports this

So let's not pretend that you creationist clowns have any rebuttal to the science and the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"Magical processes" being the other.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I think fruit theft is a viable explanation for talking snakes... but that's just me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



God chose a way to hand down the punishment for sin which is death. Everything experiences Entropy.

Gradual decline to disorder is what is seen in nature whether it be planets or living organisms.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have stated between 6,000 to 12,000 and I base that from the bible not scientific explanations. It's only an opinion just like the opinion of 4.5 billion years old it's only opinion.


----------



## Surfer (Jun 22, 2013)

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As noted, you suffer from confusion (more likely just lie) as to what you have previously written.

Your usual attempts at conspiracy theories regarding the age of the planet aren't going to help you. There is verifiable evidence for an ancient planet.

Where is the verifiable evidence for your gawds?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Surfer said:


> I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.



Others believe similarly about their particular gawds.... and others about belief in Bigfoot, space aliens and Leprechauns.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I will say it again not a conspiracy theory just flawed assumptions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.
> ...



Typical response from an ignorant Ideologue.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No. You were yet again caught in a lie.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



Oh, the melodrama. 

Demonstrate for us how you can confirm the Christian gawds are true and the Hindu gawds are false.

Come on, fundie man. In the meantime, hurl some more vulgarities. You're so much more endurable when you're frothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



LOL I think everyone saw the attack on the assumptions of dating methods. Your article even admits that decay rates fluctuate but that is not the only assumption that was refuted.

You still have not responded to my questions what is up with that ?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




As I said, the subject of death is not about physical decline and biological death or entropy. Everything that has ever or will ever live on earth will experience physical decline and biological death. It is not a punishment from God.


The death referred to in scripture in a multitude of ways is about the inability of the mind of those gullible enough to be deceived to function with a rational awareness of what is actually taking place in reality giving the deceiver, using this power of death consequent to disobedience to the laws of God,  an easy way to control and victimize for life the resulting golem which he fleeces and hordes like a herd of dumb farm animals.


Its simple.

 If you fill your mind with archaic superstitions and irrational nonsense and fail to learn the hidden lessons of the past conveyed in scripture you will be incapable of understanding what is actually taking place and will do nothing to save your soul from the deeper implications of present events....


If nothing else you have proven the wisdom of God in giving the command to refrain from the flesh of unclean beasts who do not ruminate by perfectly demonstrating the consequences for disobedience.

Well done!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What attack would that be? 
Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation
"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent 

You mean an attack that you hoped would discredit the dating method but which only served to confirm the viability of the dating method?

What a dismal and impotent perspective you have. Science will certainly always be vulnerable to error, yes. But the productive progress of science shows us that over time, peer review reduces those errors and our propensity for error is diminished. While absolute truth may be forever out of reach, provisional truth is continuously incrementally closing the gap. 

I am unwilling to share your sense of futility and simply throw up my hands and accept appeals to fear and ignorance as you do.

You still have not provided proof of your gawds as opposed to claims by others of "feelings" regarding their gawds. 

Leading your presumptive argument with claims to supernaturalism and "because I say so" as a viable claim is nonsensical. Have you forgotten that you were already advised of this?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


IF everything experiences entropy, that says no matter can exist. Does matter exist?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 22, 2013)

Surfer,  _et al,_

Nothing wrong with this.



Surfer said:


> I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.


*(COMMENT)*

This is the definition of "faith" in a Supreme Being.  And science does not challenge this at all.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Okay, first of all, it was your argument that matter is energy, and not creatable or destroyable. I don't dispute your argument, I just pointed out it defines God. I can pontificate that nothing is "impossible" because it's not. I'm not sure what sort of "repeatable test" you are relying on for your "contracting universe" theory, because the universe isn't contracting at all, but yet, it has been pontificated as if it were fact. Just as it is often incorrectly pontificated that evolution explains origin or refutes creation. 

I personally don't believe that energy can't be destroyed or created, because this would mean that energy is God, and I think God created energy and can destroy it. I believe, that very often in our physical universe, spiritual nature intervenes to produce what we define as "unexplained phenomenon" and we just keep on trucking. You are arrogant enough to think your physical sciences are infallible and explain everything of the universe. Science can't even explain everything of the PHYSICAL universe, and it doesn't even touch the spiritual universe, which also exists, because humans connect with it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.


----------



## numan (Jun 22, 2013)

Surfer said:


> I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.


I think your belief is questionable, but I cannot fault you for having that belief, since I am not you and do not know your experiences.

If Boss did not, in his bumptiousness, go beyond your chaste and limited expression of faith, I would have no quarrel with him.

It is his unsupported assertion that his private experience, or the private experiences of other people, *PROVE* the existence of God, or a spiritual realm, that I reject. *PROOF* can only exist in the public realm, where scientific analysis can be applied to a matter -- and even then, that proof is always provisional and questionable. No private opinion, no matter how deep the conviction with which it is held, can ever constitute PROOF!!
.


----------



## numan (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> Isn't it curious, we find *atoms*, the smallest thing in the universe we can see... and they *are orbited by little round protons, neutrons, and electrons.* Then we can go to the most powerful telescopes and as far out into the universe as we can look, we see small suns, orbited by planets and planets orbited by moons... a pattern. *Big Bangs do not create patterns, they create chaos.* This is a testable hypothesis. So what can be the physical science explanation for pattern, order, logic, where we should find chaos?


Oh, dear, oh, dear!!

Where to begin dealing with all the scientific errors contained in that one short paragraph!!

Boss, you are utterly ignorant about the physical universe, yet you presume to know something about the Unseen Realm!!

The Big Bang was very likely a featureless, uniform chaos in its beginning -- in a state very close to maximum entropy -- yet order and structure can still arise out of it!!

There are many bells and whistles to the concept of Entropy, which much be thoroughly understood before one presumes to make pronouncements about it.

What is key is the rate of expansion of the early universe, and the rate of dissipation of energy within it.

If the universe expands too fast, very quickly nothing can cross the vast spaces that would permit interaction with something else.

If the expansion is slow, then there is enough time for uniform distribution of of energy across the entire universe, and there is no departure from a state of maximum entropy.

But if the expansion is at a  middling rate, "things get left behind," there is not sufficient time for energies to become evenly distributed across the entire universe, and gravity can then begin to act upon inhomogeneities to form large-scale clumps of gas which collapse into yet more intricate structure.

Dissipative processes are quite complex, and cannot be subsumed under any simple-minded notions of entropy.
.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7413764-post3439.html


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Nope the matter is not destroyed the object is destroyed due to disorder the matter is just transferred to something else.

So when a person dies what happens to the matter ?

When a planet or meteor dies what happens to the matter ?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You said EVERYTHING experiences entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "in a closed thermodynamic system, entropy never decreases." That allows entropy to equal zero.

If everything experiences entropy, then the atom itself must experience entropy and its entropy cannot equal zero. Therefore the electrons orbiting the nucleus must be slowing down from entropy which would cause them to be drawn into their nucleus and splitting it and therefore no matter could exist.


----------



## numan (Jun 22, 2013)

'
There is an Urbane Legend that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide when he realized that there was a definite possibility (though an _exceedingly small_ one!) that all the air molecules in a room could, by random chance, all rush to a corner of the room -- leaving us to gasp out our lives in a vacuum!!

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.



If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jun 22, 2013)

Although, I always believed in God, I'll admit there is no proof that He exists.  Of course, it's a matter of faith.

My best attempt to ask for what the OP is asking for is the Our Lady of Fatima miracle.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2013)

numan said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.
> ...



And this is articulated in the OP, first couple of paragraphs. We have to define what is meant by "proof" in order to debate the question. Well, if you reject spiritual evidence, you can't ever find proof of spiritual nature. The definitive proof can only be fully realized if you accept spiritual nature exists in a spiritual sense. Your argument is the same argument that non-believers always present, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence... I fully understand that, and haven't disputed it. In fact, I went on to add, that physical evidence will never be able to definitively prove God, or God becomes physical in nature. 

Furthermore, I did indeed apply science to the question. The particular science applied, was Ethology, the study of animal behavior. We have compelling evidence that human spirituality has always existed in civilized man, and is as prevalent today as ever. This was countered with studies showing a decline in religion, but it's entirely possible for humans to behave spiritually, and not belong to a religion. The fact remains, human spirituality is our most defining and unique behavioral attribute. 

From our studies in Ethology of other living things and their behaviors, we know that behaviors don't simply exist for no tangible reason. Even when we can't clearly rationalize the behavior, if we study long enough, we find that the behavior indeed has fundamental purpose. What we have never seen in nature, in any other living thing, is the imaginary creation of behavior by a species, to enable some fundamental aspect. So if this is the case with human spirituality, it is the only such instance in all recorded history of animal behavior. In fact, it would completely defy everything we understand about behaviors and how they evolve. Many species met their demise, clinging to irrational behaviors or not adapting to more rational behavior, but humans have thrived and excelled like no other living thing. This "proves" the human spirituality behavior is indeed, fundamental and rational. 

Now, how can this be, if we're not connecting to something? It's as if you plug a lamp into a dead socket, and it works, but the socket is dead. If we believe we are connecting to something, and this belief is beneficial and fundamental to what we are and what we've become, and this belief remains virtually unchanged throughout our existence as a species, there MUST be something there. It's impossible for this to be imaginary or delusional, because it would have vanished long ago, as there would have been no tangible benefit realized. We have billions (maybe trillions) of people, through ages of human history, professing the belief in something spiritual, attesting to the benefits known as blessings.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.
> ...


Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...


All that proves is you are a pompous idiot. 

Bacteria have survived much longer than man and will probably survive long after mankind wipes themselves out because of know-it-all know-nothings like you.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> There is an Urbane Legend that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide when he realized that there was a definite possibility (though an _exceedingly small_ one!) that all the air molecules in a room could, by random chance, all rush to a corner of the room -- leaving us to gasp out our lives in a vacuum!!
> 
> .



We use the word "spiritual" to define the universe beyond our physical reality or understanding. There is nothing in physical science which states that "spiritual" things can't be discovered. Indeed, many things once considered "spiritually" controlled, were discovered to have physical explanation. Agreed? 

It is not impossible to physically prove the spiritual, it's just that, whenever it happens, it becomes physically explained and part of physical nature. As these things happen, they pile up as "evidence" for disbelievers, to claim there is no spiritual nature. But if you stop for a moment and consider, WHY did physical nature produce whatever physically-explained phenomenon, the question of a spiritual nature returns. We discover HOW God did things, and then claim it as proof there is no God. It is absurd to draw such conclusions, in light of all the evidence yet to be discovered.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy. 

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful. 

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD! 

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Hmm good point,it seems I was a little broad with my statement.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You make a good point Boss.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 I remember reading that atoms can be created and destroyed in both cases it ends with a release of energy like say the atom bomb  or a nuclear bomb. So why would an atom not suffer from entropy this is what happens to planets. If matter can be created and destroyed that means all we see could have been created and both energy and matter could have existed outside of our universe but I would say the creator of all is both energy and matter so since God has always existed so has energy and matter.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!"

Which is by definition... LAUGHABLE!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



That was one steaming pantload.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 22, 2013)

what in statutory law is scientifically proven to exist ?


----------



## oldfart (Jun 22, 2013)

Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer.  Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on?  A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.  

For example, if by "God" is meant the "Clockmaker God" of the Enlightenment, what does a proof of that god tell us about the God of the Old Testament, or Odin for that matter?

I posit Oldfart's Conjecture:  That the more the detailed the characteristics of a deity the more vulnerable it will be to refutation.  Corollary:  The more provable the existence of a deity, the more likely the characteristics of such a deity  are such to make it trivial.  

Any thoughts?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The release of energy in destroying an atom is the energy that was contained in the atom before it was destroyed. No NEW energy was created. The same energy just changed form.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 22, 2013)

edthecynic,  _et al,_

What we know of the laws of the universe and science is never complete; never the whole truth.



edthecynic said:


> All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
> Get it?????


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure I understand.  But it sure sounds interesting!



edthecynic said:


> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, science doesn't know if this is an inviolable truth.  It seems to fit the science we know today; and, it has not been proven wrong.  But, there are some interesting questions that would seem to suggest that it might not be totally valid.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things. 

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer.  Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on?  A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.
> 
> For example, if by "God" is meant the "Clockmaker God" of the Enlightenment, what does a proof of that god tell us about the God of the Old Testament, or Odin for that matter?
> 
> ...



You can skip most of the 3500 posts, and find all you need in the OP. The first point in the OP argument, is to establish parameters and understandings of the terminology. I intentionally removed "God" from the constraints of having to conform to any particular religious incarnation for a reason. We do not need to define every detail to determine if something exists. The next point is, whether or not an individual can accept existence or presence of spiritual nature. If you don't believe spiritual nature exists, you can't evaluate spiritual evidence, which means you can never find "definitive proof" of god. If you can overcome this closed-minded prejudice, and open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. 

This thread is full of reactionary responses from people who don't believe in spiritual nature. As I predicted in the OP argument, they are incapable of evaluating the spiritual evidence because they disbelieve in spiritual nature. The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


When SCIENCE says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, SCIENCE says energy has existed and will exist in the same total quantity, in other words, energy is a constant, PERIOD. Scientific language does not use the multiple dictionary definitions for a word, in scientific language words have one meaning and one meaning only.

If YOU want to claim that God is the physical entity "energy" and not a spirit, be my guest, but don't attribute it to me.

What is the difference between scientific language and literary language

Answer:
first, they focus on different aspects of meaning. Scientific language depends on denotation while literary language depends on connotation. 
second, the purposes for using these two kinds of language are different. The purpose for using scientific language is practical, that is to say, this language are used for describing the physical world. But the purpose for using literary language is to share the author's emotion, attitude and feeling. 
third,they are different in form. when we use scientific language, we need not to create an asthetic experience. But when we use literary language, we have to pay attention to the choice of words and the sentence order. Poem is a typical example.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Excellent post Boss.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss,  _et al,_

This is the case of the "round-tuit."



Boss said:


> For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.


*(COMMENT)*

In my old age, my better half _(the same 19 year old I married 35 years ago)_ surprised me recently.  She would give me a chore to perform, and in a very confidant manner I would tell her:  "When I get a round-tuit."  Knowing full well that a "round-tuit" doesn't exist.  But then, just after Christmas, we had this conversation, and I stated my prerequisite "round-tuit;" and she tossed me one.





Now, the question is:  Is it real?  OR  Is it a creation of mans imagination?

How do I disprove it is a real "round tuit?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## hobelim (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Maybe someone should tell him that alpha and omega means beginning and end?


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I give your tapdance an 8.4, Eddy! Nice original form, but the song is so overused and outdated. Still, your spin moves were world class.

I didn't argue that God is energy. I believe energy is a creation of God. I simply pointed out, your definition of an uncreatable, undestroyable, everlasting entity, is the same definition for God. I don't think you have proven that energy is God, but you certainly proved God is not only spiritually possible, but physically explainable. If energy can have these properties, then so can God. 

We've not discovered physical evidence to prove God exists, but if we ever do, I can predict the reaction from the disbelievers will be, that God never was spiritual, since God would be proven physically. The problem here, again, is not that God doesn't exist, it is your inability to recognize things of spiritual nature. With your definition of "energy" we can see that you have the capacity to comprehend omnipotence, omnipresence, and everlasting life. You believe it and have faith in it, because it is written in a Science book. 

As I stated earlier, humans are intrinsically inclined to spiritual belief, and your spiritual belief resides in Science. You even go so far as to make a case for "Holy Words" of Science, which can't be used in any other context. You are confused in thinking your "religion" is empirical and untouchable, because it seems to have the support of physical evidence. The fact remains, your theories, no matter how supportable, are reliant upon faith. Even the mathematics of physics, rely on faith that physics will remain constant. So, you are really not any different than 96% of the human species, you have spiritual faith, it just resides in the religion of Science.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Maybe someone should smack you in the head with a 2x4 so perhaps you'll learn CONTEXT? 

When god is described as "the alpha and omega" it means the same as what Ed described of energy, that it is everlasting, omnipotent, omnipresent... never ends or begins, it is BOTH, alpha (the beginning) and omega (the ending).  I merely used the phrase because I know how much Hollie enjoys Biblical references. 

But yeah, the 2x4 upside your goofy noggin, would probably straighten you right out!


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Boss,  _et al,_
> 
> This is the case of the "round-tuit."
> 
> ...



I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one. 

We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear? The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer.  Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on?  A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.
> ...



That's such a wonderful argument. In order to believe in something you call "spiritual nature", we must first accept something you call "spiritual evidence". 

_What is "spiritual evidence"? _

"Spiritual evidence" is proof of "spiritual nature"

_How do we know this?_

Because Boss says so!


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> ............
> 
> The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. *For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists.* Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.






> *OP:* You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, *then it would be a physical entity.*




*..... then it would be a physical entity.*

there is no proof by the OP as a basic fallacy that the spiritual entity God does not have a physical presence or that a physical presence would be exclusionary for a spiritual entity -

proof of simultaneous existence of both spirit and form is the individual itself that both "connects to something greater than self" spiritually, while likewise retaining a physical / physiological form.


*For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists ....*

if the spiritual entity were to display itself by its physical nature the disbelievers would be satisfied of its existence.


the OP can only speculate why the Spiritual Entity chooses not to display itself in a physical form but can not stipulate that spiritual evidence is the only means to prove its existence - otherwise the OP is accurate in its account for spiritual evidence as a means of confirmation.


the reason the Spiritual Entity does not display itself physically is the reason, from time immemorial (for mankind) there is doubt it exists and is the primary basis for Atheism.


for the OP to insinuate all other life forms are not similarly connected to the spiritual entity does not take into account other life forms may not require as Atheist a physical display but rather simply have developed a purer spiritual connection that is beyond a period of doubt and may have a more satisfying connection.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Boss,  _et al,_
> ...



Oh, please. Grow up.

Sound is proven by pressure as the result of the movement of air. Those physical properties exist whether we are deaf of not. Anyone who has ever been to a live concert, close to the stage, can attest to the thumping one can _feel_ from low frequency sounds.

Are you so arrogant to suggest that there are senses beyond those we can describe and define? Of course you are. So present your evidence for these extra-human senses. Just remember that you are obligated to support your claims with something more than because I say so.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Because Boss says so, and billions of humans over the ages who profess to the miracles and blessings from spiritual nature, also say so. And because science confirms human behaviors say so. This is not refuted because Hollie says so.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Those are properties of a physical entity, therefore for God to have them God must also be a physical entity. So yet again you have established that the physical begets the spiritual.

Even though you have unknowingly established that the physical begets the spiritual, you have established that a physical energy God created itself in the form of a spiritual God who created energy which cannot be created.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.
> 
> We function in a reality governed by our five senses. Imagine, if we were unable to hear, could we have ever physically proven "sound" exists? What is "sound" if we have no ability to hear?* The things we can "prove" with science, are limited to our five senses* and what we can relate to in the reality we function in. Are we so arrogant as to believe there can be no more senses other than the ones we happen to possess?


Science is in no way limited to the 5 senses. Where do you make this stuff up from?

With our machines and our sensors we have expanded our awareness. We have equipment that can detect radio waves, x-rays, etc., which are beyond our 5 senses.
You are the most ignorant pompous know-it-all I have ever encountered!!!


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ............
> ...



I doubt it. What the disbelievers would say is: "See? I told you there was never any spiritual nature!" As I pointed out, science has discovered all kinds of things that were once thought to be controlled by spiritual nature, should I run down the list? Or can we agree, this has been the case throughout the history of science? Therefore, physical evidence of God would be met with the same smug criticisms and chortles from disbelievers in spiritual nature. They've constructed a no-lose proposition, because if God can be physically proven, then Spirituality becomes obsolete, and God becomes physical in nature. 




> the OP can only speculate why the Spiritual Entity chooses not to display itself in a physical form but can not stipulate that spiritual evidence is the only means to prove its existence - otherwise the OP is accurate in its account for spiritual evidence as a means of confirmation.
> 
> the reason the Spiritual Entity does not display itself physically is the reason, from time immemorial (for mankind) there is doubt it exists and is the primary basis for Atheism.
> 
> for the OP to insinuate all other life forms are not similarly connected to the spiritual entity does not take into account other life forms may not require as Atheist a physical display but rather simply have developed a purer spiritual connection that is beyond a period of doubt and may have a more satisfying connection.



I don't disagree with the point you are making here, it is indeed relevant and valid. After all, how can we know the personal spiritual connection of an ant or bird? In the spirit of demonstrating my agreement with what you've said, let me amend my previous statement: Humans appear to be the only creatures who are able to exhibit a utilization of their spiritual connection to inspire themselves, as a source of inner strength and optimism, which has been the basis for our empowerment and ultimately, our advancement as a species. Other living things may very well have spiritual connection, and their behaviors may be largely determined by spiritual nature's guidance, but they appear to be self-aware (satisfied) of this, if that's the case. Indeed, physical nature in total, does seem to conform to some system of harmony and not random chaos. It should be clear that something does guide this, and the simplistic theories of 'natural selection' simply can't explain it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I've got one better... How can you prove that reality as we experience it, isn't a creation of man's imagination? Think about it... not so easy to answer that one.
> ...



LMAO.... How did you "detect" them, with your non-physical senses?


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Wow, you are missing your own logic now, Eddy. 

Those are properties you assigned to a physical entity. If they can apply to a physical entity, they could certainly apply to any spiritual entity. You've theorized it is physically possible to have a physical entity be everlasting, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Why can't this apply to spiritual entities? How do you KNOW that there is no physical evidence to support God? You just gave us some very compelling evidence, in my opinion, you established the physical possibility of everlasting life, omnipotence, omnipresence. 

Well done!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Jesus was God's physical manifestation here on Earth. Did anyone happen to mention that?


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties? Not as "sounds" we currently understand. Perhaps we would recognize them through sense of touch? What if some humans believed in sound and some people believed it was all our imaginations because of our complex sense of touch? What if those who believed in sound, had developed their ability to appreciate different sounds, and although they couldn't actually hear them, could still gain great benefit from being in the presence of them? Would the non-believers in sound, still be pounding their keyboards, 3600+ posts in, to disprove the kakamamie notion of sound?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.

But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



For purposes of the OP question, I have intentionally avoided introducing any religious theocracy, because it taints the question of spiritual existence. Jesus was a physical being, and may have well been the physical incarnation of a spiritual entity, I have no proof of that, and make no such argument here. That is a theological belief, and while it does serve to prove that humans spiritually connect to something, it also tends to draw controversy, when this question deserves complete clarity. 

The evidence of human connection to something spiritual, far predates Christian religion. In fact, it goes back to the very origins of our species. This isn't a theocratic argument, it is very scientific and based on physical evidence. It is important to remain focused on the physical evidence whenever we can, and for this reason, we must abandon religious preconception. That is not to dismiss religious beliefs, but rather, to remain focused on the question at hand and the physical evidence science can provide.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I would have to agree with this post.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"The physical properties exist, but how would we, as humans with no capacity to hear, recognize these properties?"

I'll type this very slowly so you can understand it: "sound pressure waves".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Mans spiritual connection is not the only connection between God and man.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.
> 
> But thank you for now admitting the the physical and spiritual are interchangeable after having vehemently denied it for this entire thread.



I haven't denied anything. In fact, I made the point that physical sciences have often come along to "explain" what was previously thought to be something spiritually guided. (Yet humans remain 'delusional with spirituality' for some odd reason.) 

As Rocco points out, the THEORIES regarding indestructible energy are indeed being questioned. There is never any "conclusion" made by science, those are made by MAN! 

But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you have defined a physical entity as being indestructible, omnipotent, and omnipresent, with no beginning or ending, everlasting life. I think this is a monumental breakthrough, especially for a non-believer! 

As I said, if you didn't actually prove god's existence, you made a very strong case for the possibility.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

The term Ruach should shed some light on this subject.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why don't you read to the end of the post, dear? Instead of emotively reacting to post some smart ass remark, as soon as you get to something that sets you off? I asked you how would humans interpret these "sound pressure waves" if we couldn't HEAR them? 

We would have physical evidence of something we could feel, but we couldn't see it or taste it, and we don't know what hearing is.... so would it be "real" or a product of our imaginations, created by our complex ability to "feel" things? We can see which side of the argument you would be on, regardless of any evidence presented from those kooky "sound worshipers!"


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes he does get set off easily and then his pure contempt gets revealed.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



As usual, you require that: "well, a lot of people believe it so it must be true", nonsense.

As it has been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously, lots of people believe, and have believed, in many things that were untrue. "A lot of people believe it" is an atrociously naïve reason to keep pressing your agenda for supernatural gawds.

Here&#8217;s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn&#8217;t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?

For almost 70,000 years, humans believed that the earth was flat. I&#8217;m not convinced that their &#8220;spiritual nature&#8221; was entirely correct. Their _spiritual nature_&#8482; was obviously misrepresented by their _spiritual evidence_&#8482; thus rendering their _spiritual existence_&#8482; one of fear and superstition.

Fear is a instinctual response to danger that is based upon chemical interactions in the brain. Emotions are not mysterious.  _Spiritual natures_&#8482;, _spiritual existence_&#8482; and 
_spirits_&#8482; in general are not functions of gawds. Human fears and emotions are functions of chemical processes in the brain -- they have very natural roots in instinctual responses from our biologic and evolutionary history and we see these behaviors common to both humans and lower animals. This is of course logical and rational with science and chemistry available to support the statement, but logic and reason don't always sell well. People much more prefer the comfort of their "supernatural" beliefs. That's why books on science sell poorly and nonsense books on Bermuda Triangles and space aliens sell well. The truth is not as comforting as myths, and generally speaking people shy away from truth in favor of their comfy little myths.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why don't you proof read your own comments before pressing the "submit reply" button?

It was you who asked a juvenile question and when the obvious answer was given, you recoiled in shock surprise.

Sound pressure levels exist in the natural world. I'm at a loss to explain if they exist in your spirit worlds. In the natural, rational world, sound pressure is real whether or not it conflicts with your nonsensical attempt at argumentation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie Quote "Here&#8217;s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn&#8217;t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

Sorry but this is your chemical reaction at work and it is pure BS unless you would like to prove otherwise which we both know you can't.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Flailing your cheerleader pom poms, with nothing to contribute.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie Quote "Heres a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesnt really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"
> 
> Sorry but this is your chemical reaction at work and it is pure BS unless you would like to prove otherwise which we both know you can't.



Believe the earth is flat if you choose. As usual, you're not to be taken seriously.

Here - have a refreshing drink of Kool Aid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Pay attention Ruggedtouch.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie Quote "Heres a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesnt really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"
> ...



I am waiting for you to make your case for this claim.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.
> ...


When you redefine a proven LAW of science as a "theory" you are unconsciously admitting you KNOW you are wrong and you have to change reality to fit your imagination. While the First LAW of Thermodynamics is being questioned, science questions everything, it has yet to be disproved and therefore still stands. You can play games all you want, but you have no spiritual existence without physical existence first. 
It is self evident.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Mans spiritual connection is not the only connection between God and man.



That's profound - and totally pointless.

Steal that from Harun Yahya, did ya"?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What claim - that you're pointless? Anyone can read your nonsensical posts and come to their own conclusions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No, they are properties that have been proven with a repeatable experiment, no theory or assignment about it.
> ...



Heres another bit of enlightenment for you: examination of the physical sciences have not come along to explain mans fears and superstitions. The physical sciences and the Scientific Method were the result of a process of discovery whereby observations of the natural world often conflicted with dogma furthered by the religious entities.

Speaking of dogma furthered by the religious entities, why not be honest and admit that the entire exercise of this thread was to press your religious agenda.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I wrote "billions of people". 

You are convinced that ignorance and not paying attention are a virtue, right?


Please. Drink the Kool Aid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're a disingenuous Ideologue.

Drink the kool aid.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Don't let your stupidity and ignorance be a challenge to your poor reading skills. 

What I wrote (as opposed to your lies and false allegations) is in my prior post. 

Use the "quote" function to accurately convey what others have written out. Otherwise stay away from the thread until you're able to offer coherent comments.


----------



## numan (Jun 23, 2013)

'
Hollie is correct, and the devotees of voodoo are wrong.

Boss, I will ignore the blatant sexism in your postings -- "dear" -- and simply point out the obvious. If we had been utterly deaf all through our evolutionary history, we could still know a great deal about sound. Physical observation would reveal it (non-visible electromagnetic waves were discovered, weren't they?), and even more important, the *consistencies* in those observations would reveal much to us about the nature of the phenomenon.

We cannot know what, subjectively,  it is like to detect things in water by means of pressure waves or electrical currents, as many marine organisms do, but we have learned that they have such senses and much about how they work. The same may be said about senses of heat radiation in snakes and perception of ultraviolet light in many insects.

Physical observation, rational construction of hypotheses and correlating the *consistencies or non-consistencies* in our observations -- these are the *true magick* which has permitted us to trancend the primal nescience of our animal subjectivity.

Boss -- "deary" -- I will quote the profound words of a very intelligent *woman* writer who, it seems to me has said it best:

*"The point that leads me to favor realism over the theory of the observer-dependence of reality is that reality does consistently answer electron questions with electrons, and wave questions with waves, and that it refuses to answer certain other questions----for example, questions concerning phlogiston, or angels----consistently or at all.

"The evidence for the reality of the world is not that the appearances ---the data--- reveal the objects as they are in themselves [how could they?], but that the world is both selective and consistent in its answers to our questions. Moreover, from a knowledge of conceptual structures alone it would not be possible to predict which questions the world would answer or what answers it would give."* 
_---Freya Mathews, "The Ecological Self"_
.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie were these your words or not ?

"Here&#8217;s a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesn&#8217;t really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?"

False premise

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"

Now where did you get your information ? The stupidity is not mine.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Was this your comment or not:

"Let me type it slow for you. You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth I am asking you to provide something that supports your claim." 


False premise and false accusation.

The stupidity is, of course, yours, as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Did billions of people believe in a flat earth or not ?

Usually when you use this accusation who is it directed at ?


----------



## oldfart (Jun 23, 2013)

First, I really appreciate the summary.  Those of us who run across the thread and think the topic interesting don't want to waste the time of others by rehashing old material, but frankly by the time I had read 3500 posts, I would have forgotten the content of the first 3000! 



Boss said:


> You can skip most of the 3500 posts, and find all you need in the OP. The first point in the OP argument, is to establish parameters and understandings of the terminology. I intentionally removed "God" from the constraints of having to conform to any particular religious incarnation for a reason. We do not need to define every detail to determine if something exists.



I would agree.  But there is still a need for a common understanding of the "something".  A quick survey leads me to believe there are three candidates out there:
1.  A personified deity which happens to match the exact attributes of the poster's belief's (most often a Biblical God)
2.  A generic personified deity which exists, has personified attributes and interacts with individuals (you can pray to it, entreat it, worship it and so forth)
3.  The clockmaker god of the Enlightenment (or the functional equivalent; a "first mover" no longer active in guiding its own creation.  

As an aside, there are another set of concepts which may or may not have been raised which pose very interesting issues.  For example, the malevolent deity, the universe-as-deity, and so forth.  



Boss said:


> The next point is, whether or not an individual can accept existence or presence of spiritual nature. If you don't believe spiritual nature exists, you can't evaluate spiritual evidence, which means you can never find "definitive proof" of god. If you can overcome this closed-minded prejudice, and open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable.



This comes awfully close to a proof by definition.  If "spiritual evidence" can only be recognized by those who accept the existence of "spiritual nature", then the question is circular.  I have not added a QED and dismissed your point however, since I basically agree with you.  

I'm more comfortable coming at it from a different angle.  Philosophical Taoism (the school to which I belong) has a method which generally depends on observation, contemplation, and meditation.  This is guided by a pedagogical method today generally labeled as "guided discovery".  In this system there is no such thing as "holy books", "esoteric knowledge", or "revelation".  Everything useful to know could be learned by almost any human being who had a desire to find out such things and an ability to see clearly.  Of course that's a pretty small number of people, and learning unaided is very inefficient.  But it's possible and people do it.  

So would this method encounter "spiritual nature"?  It does, if you want to think that way.  More commonly, it is helpful to "translate" the terms you use to the concepts and language of Taoism.  Taoism is the exploration of the meaning and implications of Tao in answering the question of "How should a wise person conduct their life and treat other people?"  As Tao is by definition (First chapter of "Tao te Ching" begins "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao") undefinable, I am at the get-go at the exact same place you are when I question whether your discovering "spiritual nature" is a circular argument true by definition.  It's both an end to logical inquiry and a beginning to understanding.  



Boss said:


> This thread is full of reactionary responses from people who don't believe in spiritual nature. As I predicted in the OP argument, they are incapable of evaluating the spiritual evidence because they disbelieve in spiritual nature. The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.



Replace "God" with "Tao" and I say the same thing.  The key is that what you are getting at and Taoism are both experiential.  They are not logical systems, although they are not incompatible with logic (which a lot of revelatory religion is!).  I see water running downhill and surmise a principle that extends to thing other than fluid mechanics.  I presume you do to.  Something like this leads to laws of thermodynamics and concepts of entropy (although give the discussion up-thread I shudder to say that!).  It also can lead to insights about human communication and interactions.  To what can we attribute this relatedness if not to what you call "spiritual evidence"?  

This is not to say that what you call "spiritual nature" and I call Tao are the same thing.  They probably overlap without being identical.  But I would venture that I could learn something from your experiences and how you process that information that is meaningful in my frame of reference.  I certainly hope so.  

Jamie


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie also tell us the year when there was billions of people believing the earth was flat ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Did you lie or not?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I did make a mistake by saying believers but why do you avoid the questions ?

Now can you back up your claim with evidence that billions of people believed in a flat earth ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



By your standard did you lie or not ?

I don't think you lied I think you simply spend to much time on your ignorant atheists sites.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Such an angry fundie.


----------



## numan (Jun 23, 2013)

'
YouWereAndAreAnAsshole is becoming very tedious.  Hollie and I made the extremely innocuous statement that billions of people believed that the Earth was flat. Anyone who is not a Mental Basket Case, gibbering that the Earth is 6,000 years old,  knows that something like 200 billion human beings have lived on the planet Earth over the past 150,000 years. 

YouWereAndAreAnAsshole has apparently convinced itself that Hollie is lying, because only in very recent times have billions of people been on the Earth at any one time! 
The YouWereAndAreAnAsshole creature is clearly mentally deranged.

I am going to put YouWereAndAreAnAsshole on Ignore, and I hope Hollie will do the same and not waste her time responding to such a fool.
.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> As usual, you require that: "well, a lot of people believe it so it must be true", nonsense.



That's not what I said. That's not the evidence I presented. Why do you have to lie about my argument to defeat it? Have you stopped to ask yourself that question? It's not just that an overwhelming number of humans disagree with you about spiritual nature, it is also the benefits and advantages they have realized through their beliefs in spiritual nature, and the lack of decline in this spiritual nature, in spite of all the science we've discovered to explain the mysteries of the amazing universe. It's the fact that you can't logically explain this behavior in the species, or offer any other examples in nature, like the one you wish to conjure up, to explain human spirituality. 



> As it has been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously, lots of people believe, and have believed, in many things that were untrue. "A lot of people believe it" is an atrociously naïve reason to keep pressing your agenda for supernatural gawds.



And I have repeatedly and tediously explained that I get that. If my argument were simply that "a lot of people believe it" then you'd have a fucking point, but that wasn't my argument. You lied about my argument, then created an easy win for yourself. I'm calling you out on it, you didn't win, you are a liar who has to lie in order to cheat and win an argument, you have no credibility. 



> Heres a bit of enlightenment for you: because billions of people once believed that the earth was flat, doesnt really mean that we must dogmatically insist that the earth is still flat. You know that the earth is not actually flat, right?



Here's a bit of enlightenment for you... A thousand years ago, you couldn't prove that the world wasn't flat, and you still can't personally show me the world isn't flat, we rely on science to tell us the world isn't flat. If, a thousand years ago, we didn't know or understand a round earth, might it be possible, a thousand years from now, we will have discovered things we don't know today? Like the source of spiritual energy which mankind has been connecting to forever? 



> For almost 70,000 years, humans believed that the earth was flat. Im not convinced that their spiritual nature was entirely correct. Their _spiritual nature_ was obviously misrepresented by their _spiritual evidence_ thus rendering their _spiritual existence_ one of fear and superstition.



Flat earth wasn't a "spiritual belief" it was what most every 'rational' human assumed. The first people to suggest something different, were laughed an chortled at, much the same as I have been in this thread. They were thought to be quite mad, believing the world was round, like a ball... _why didn't all the water run off, if that were so?_ Even the young scientists of the time, were skeptical and got things wrong. But because people were not closed minded intolerants like you, they kept exploring possibilities, and eventually discovered the earth was round. 



> Fear is a instinctual response to danger that is based upon chemical interactions in the brain. Emotions are not mysterious.  _Spiritual natures_, _spiritual existence_ and
> _spirits_ in general are not functions of gawds. Human fears and emotions are functions of chemical processes in the brain -- they have very natural roots in instinctual responses from our biologic and evolutionary history and we see these behaviors common to both humans and lower animals. This is of course logical and rational with science and chemistry available to support the statement, but logic and reason don't always sell well. People much more prefer the comfort of their "supernatural" beliefs. That's why books on science sell poorly and nonsense books on Bermuda Triangles and space aliens sell well. The truth is not as comforting as myths, and generally speaking people shy away from truth in favor of their comfy little myths.



You are explaining to me HOW fears work in the brain, etc. I already understand this stuff. 

Animals do not create irrational fears, then have to create imaginary things to protect them from irrational fears. This doesn't happen ANYWHERE in nature, and never has, as best we can tell. It's irrational, from a nature standpoint, to fear death. Jungle animals are often described as "fearless." Nothing else in nature, contemplates what happens to them after they die, this is an attribute known to humans because of our ability to spiritually connect. 

Again, to correct you, there is nothing "supernatural" about something that is part of nature. Human spirituality is part of nature, and that's something you can't deny. So it is dishonest to keep using the word "supernatural" to replace "spiritual nature" and shows more of your lack of integrity as a person. 



Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I do proofread, but you didn't finish reading my entire point. People often make a statement, then continue on to make a legitimate point. If we could not hear, we would not recognize "sounds" as we currently do... true or false? You stated yourself, we would be able to detect "sound waves" ...but is that "sound" as we currently know it? No, it is not. Are you following me, sweetheart? We would have no concept of "sounds" as we currently know them, but that wouldn't mean that "sounds" as we do currently know them, didn't exist. It would only mean that our perception of them was different, in this case, we would perceive the "feeling" of sound. 

Of course, if we couldn't hear sounds, we wouldn't be able to speak, so we wouldn't have been able to communicate through words and language. This is all a hypothetical, designed to get you to think outside the box for a moment, take a break from being an Atheist God Basher, and imagine spirituality as being something we are not able to fully sense. The fact that we can't see, smell, taste, hear, or touch it, doesn't mean it can't exist. We can spiritually connect to it, we've been doing it for all of human existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> YouWereAndAreAnAsshole is becoming very tedious.  Hollie and I made the extremely innocuous statement that billions of people believed that the Earth was flat. Anyone who is not a Mental Basket Case, gibbering that the Earth is 6,000 years old,  knows that something like 200 billion human beings have lived on the planet Earth over the past 150,000 years.
> 
> YouWereAndAreAnAsshole has apparently convinced itself that Hollie is lying, because only in very recent times have billions of people been on the Earth at any one time!
> ...



So in other words you realize your opinion is the same as ,well there are so many planets out there,that there must be life. 

I could care less if you ever respond to to me dipshit.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Ruggedtouch if everyone saw all your posts from understanding Islam they would definitely think that about you.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Muhammud, if everyone saw all your posts from Harun Yahya, they would definitely not change a single opinion about your ignorance.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 24, 2013)




----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



 I have never posted on that site.

Funny how you claimed you had stalkers over there like you did here with UR. 

The same language you used with Islamic people as you do with Christians lol.

What you did there you were so impressed with you use it here.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> YouWereAndAreAnAsshole is becoming very tedious.  Hollie and I made the extremely innocuous statement that billions of people believed that the Earth was flat. Anyone who is not a Mental Basket Case, gibbering that the Earth is 6,000 years old,  knows that something like 200 billion human beings have lived on the planet Earth over the past 150,000 years.
> 
> YouWereAndAreAnAsshole has apparently convinced itself that Hollie is lying, because only in very recent times have billions of people been on the Earth at any one time!
> ...



One other thing genius where are all the graves or fossils 200 billion


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


How strange you now claim you have never posted at Harun Yahya when so much of the nonsense you cut and paste is taken from that site.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



It's as though you believe stupidity is a virtue. 

I suppose those long hours at Harun Yahya take a toll.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're a Liar hollie.

I used one article from them and by the way no one from your side could explain away that evidence that was provided. Creationist have pretty much the same views just as atheistic evolutionists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Same rhetoric from ruggedtouch.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie why would you give yourself a female name here but a name like ruggedtouch over there. Trying to purposely hide your Identity ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

I am waiting for ruggedtouch to claim I am a scary stalker lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie we can now discuss my questions I asked you or we can continue down this road or you can return to understanding Islam,never mind they banned you for the content of your posts.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It must be difficult to spend so much time in a stupor.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie we can now discuss my questions I asked you or we can continue down this road or you can return to understanding Islam,never mind they banned you for the content of your posts.



Your questions being material cut and pasted from Harun Yahya are laughable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I wouldn't know but I believe you could shed some light on it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie we can now discuss my questions I asked you or we can continue down this road or you can return to understanding Islam,never mind they banned you for the content of your posts.
> ...



 just answer the questions.

That is funny that you think you need to hide your Identity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

What else I find interesting hollie is you made the claim at that forum to a poster and said why are you following me around do you need a daddy and yet you portray yourself as a woman here lol.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> What else I find interesting hollie is you made the claim at that forum to a poster and said why are you following me around do you need a daddy and yet you portray yourself as a woman here lol.



Do you really find that interesting, muhammud?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Coming from a Harun Yahya worshipper, that is funny, muhammud.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > What else I find interesting hollie is you made the claim at that forum to a poster and said why are you following me around do you need a daddy and yet you portray yourself as a woman here lol.
> ...




Who is  muhammud ? is that who you asked if he needed a daddy ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Is this really behavior that your prophet would approve of?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I assure you that is not I. You see like UR I looked up some of your comments and it lead me straight to Ruggedtouch. Either that was you or you're guilty of plagiarism. I am beginning to think you're not that person you were just plagiarising that person.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Exposing a fraud yes I believe he would be fine with that. You think my prophet will have mercy on people like you on judgment day ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's funny, muhammud. Considering the volume of material you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how often were you called out for cutting and pasting falsified "quotes"?

The obvious answer is many times.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hmm trying to spin your way out of this lol. Hollie like daws your credibility is very low with other posters here or atleast anyone with half of a brain.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Speaking of spinning, what a shame that your religious convictions allow you the privilege of posting falsified "quotes". You were even exposed for cutting and pasting the same falsified "quotes" weeks after your earlier actions were expose. 

What is the term you call this, Taqiyya?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Someone is getting desperate.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Who's getting desperate, muhammud?

I pointed out that you were exposed on many occasions for cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" you knew were lies. 

Behavior such as pathological lying seems pretty desperate to me.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





If someone is dishonest about probably the most important issues they may ever face such as the way to eternal life, the nature of God, and the truth about reality, what are the chances they will be honest about anything less important???


C'mon now, YWC believes that Jesus was human, but without a human father, and that Jesus was God, and edible, even though he was human and had a mother...


Is such a person who professes to believe such bullshit even capable of giving an honest opinion of less important things such as human sexuality, social justice, or the morality or ethics of people less pretentious?


I'm mean how hard could it possibly be to admit that she has either been deceived or made mistakes in her own thinking when her irrational claims of her righteous worship of a figment of her imagination are soundly refuted? Someone dishonest in this situation is someone who only loves and practices deceit.


Could Jesus have been any more accurate when describing religious hypocrites as whitewashed tombs on the outside but full of rot and corruption within?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Surfer,  _et al,_
> 
> Nothing wrong with this.
> 
> ...


A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. 
- Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you have any proof because I have already proven what you are.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I have not found out if you're from the clan that put the messiah to death yet but working on it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


That was as pointless as I've come to expect from your incoherent ramblings.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hmm another line Ruggedtouch uses.

It seems you may be the only one who can't understand what I said,I believe they call that denial.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Another flaccid response from muhammud. I believe they call that pointless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...


that fits, you yammer on constantly about shit you know nothing about .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Well there goes the neighborhood I see Hollie 2 is here.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Posting cartoons. That's not surprising. We've seen consistently that absent cutting and pasting material from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly inadequate at collecting words into coherent sentences.  What a shame that you feel compelled to spend your time whining like a child who has been scolded. 

For all your pointless whining, you have succeeded only in spamming the thread with illustrations of your intellectual inadequacies, self-hate and and inability to compose a coherent sentence.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


a fine example of non rational thinking..
please point out where I've lied about anything.
this tantrum like all your preceding tantrums is just smoke and mirrors.
how can I hate what's not there (god),and yes you are speaking about an invisible friend.
what are "we liars" going to lose?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


au·tol·o·gy [ taw tóll&#601;jee ]   
linguistic redundancy: the redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words
instance of linguistic redundancy: an instance of redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words
logical true proposition: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true
Synonyms: repetition, duplication, reiteration, redundancy, superfluity


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


he following is a list of prominent (or once-prominent) creationists whose only doctoral degrees are either honorary or of suspicious origin. A degree is considered to be of suspicious origin if it was earned from a "degree mill" or an unlocatable institution. A degree mill is defined as any degree-granting body that is not accredited by a federally recognized accreditation body.

It would be wrong to infer from this list that all creationists have suspicious credentials. In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields. For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould. So just because a few well-known creationists failed to earn their graduate degrees the traditional way does not mean that all or even most of them did.

Thomas Barnes 
(1911-2001?) 
Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, is perhaps best known for the argument that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is proof of its young age.
Barnes, who is an emeritus professor of physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, holds a legitimate M.S. degree in physics from Brown University. However, his Sc.D. degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Christian school and his undergraduate alma mater (when it was known as Hardin-Simmons College), is merely honorary.

(Thomas Barnes the creationist is not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin's Thomas G. Barnes III, who is a highly respected astronomer and senior research scientist of the McDonald Observatory.)

Carl Baugh 
(b. ?)	 Carl Baugh is best known as a tireless proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. He has appeared on numerous Christian radio talkshows and was even touted as an "expert" on the 1996 NBC pseudoscience program, The Mysterious Origins of Man. He operates a small museum out of Glen Rose, Texas.
Baugh is a Baptist minister who claims to be an archeologist with a Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges, the primary body responsible for college and university accreditation in the region. It is also unaccredited by the state of California, although it is listed as "approved".

Baugh has also claimed Ph.D. degrees in education and anthropology from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia and the College of Advanced Education in Irving, Texas. According to Glen Kuban, who has thoroughly researched Baugh's Paluxy "man-track" claims and his credentials, neither Pacific College nor the College of Advanced Education is accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees [4]. Pacific College is a small religious school run by Australian creationist Clifford Wilson, a close associate of Baugh's. The College of Advanced Education is a division of the International Baptist College, of which Baugh himself is president.

Baugh's dissertation for his degree from Pacific College is titled "Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Supported by Evidence that Man and dinosaurs were Contemporary". Its contents include descriptions of his field-work on the Paluxy river "man-tracks", speculation about Charles Darwin's religious beliefs and phobias, and odd ramblings about the biblical Adam's mental excellence.

Richard Bliss 
(1923-1994) 
Richard Bliss, formerly a member of the ICR staff, claimed to be "a recognized expert in the field of science education" and was co-author of a "two-model" book that creationists have pushed for use in the public school system.
Bliss claimed to earn a D.Ed. from the University of Sarasota in 1978. A previous version of this article described the university as a "diploma mill operating out of a Florida motel" as late as 1984. However, the university's status has since improved. The University of Sarasota was accredited in 1990 by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to grant masters and doctoral degrees. According to the 1997 edition of Bears' Guide to Earning College Degrees Nontraditionally [1], a student's total residency at the University of Sarasota can be as short as six weeks.

Clifford Burdick 
(1894-1992) 
Clifford Burdick, a researcher for the Creation Research Society and a member of the Creation-Science Research Center, is a "flood" geologist who has spent forty years trying to prove that giant humans once roamed the earth and even mingled with the dinosaurs.
Burdick has displayed a copy of his Ph.D. from the University of Physical Sciences (Phoenix, Arizona) in Carl Baugh's Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum. According to Ronald Numbers' The Creationists [2]: "[Creationist Walter Lammerts'] inquiries revealed the University of Physical Science to be nothing more than a registered trademark. As described in its memographed bulletin, 'The University is not an educational institution, but a society of individuals of common interest for the advancement of physical science. There are no campus, professors or tuition fee.'"

John Grebe 
(1900-1984) 
John Grebe, an old-earth creationist and a founding member of the Creation Research Society, was a physical chemist and inventor. His Sc.D. degree from Case School of Applied Science was merely honorary.
Kent Hovind 
(b. 1953) 
Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].

Don Patton 
(b. 1941) 
Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.
Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban:

When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away." Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. [4]
Glen Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-tracks".
Kelly Segraves
(b. 1942) 
Kelly Segraves is the director and co-founder of the Creation-Science Research Center (not to be confused with the Creation Research Society).
In 1975, Segraves listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on CSRC letterhead. Segraves claimed his honorary D.Sc. from Christian University, but no such university could be located. It is possible that he was referring to Indiana Christian University, which also conferred an honorary doctorate on Harold Slusher (see below). After having this degree called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981 and now lists D.R.E. in its place. A D.R.E. degree is a doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific degree.

Segraves also claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972. According to Bears' Guide [1], Sequoia University was issued a permanent injunction in 1984 by a Los Angeles judge and ordered to "cease operation until the school could comply with state education laws." The school offered degrees in osteopathic medicine, religious studies, hydrotherapy and physical sciences.

Harold Slusher 
(b. 1934) 
Harold S. Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research, is best known for his critiques of radiometric dating techniques. He is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean.
Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Robert Schadewald discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. As for Columbia Pacific, it "exhibits several qualities of a degree mill" [3]. Ronald Numbers describes CPU as

an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year." Slusher's dissertation consisted of a manila folder containing copies of five memographed ICR "technical monographs" and a copy of the ICR graduate school catalog, all held together with a rubber band. The supervising professor was his creationist colleague from El Paso and the ICR, [Thomas] Barnes, who himself possessed only an honorary doctorate. [2]
According to Bears' Guide [1], Columbia Pacific was denied its application for state license renewal in early 1996 for undisclosed reasons. The university appealed the decision in late 1996, but the appeal had not been acted upon by the time Bears' Guide went to press.

Acknowledgements

This document is a heavily revised version of an article written for talk.origins by Michael Cranford. I would like to thank Richard Trott, Robert Schadewald, Jim Foley, and Ed Brayton for their helpful information, comments and suggestions.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wow! you didn't even wait the customary 100 pages before you mentioned your self proclaimed science acumen.. are we desperate? or just got jesused up from JB'S self aggrandizing proclamations ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

The Fundamental Axioms of Religion: 

Questions concerning God and the soul - whether or not God exists, whether or not we have immortal souls, where we came from, where we go when we die - are perhaps the most ``important'' of the pseudoquestions invented by mankind (measured by how much we care about the answers). They are also in some sense the most unanswerable of all of the unanswerable questions. We have axioms that work pretty well at describing the Universe in a way that leads us to believe that we understand ``something'' about how it all works, how it all is put together, but these axioms fail when applied to the concept of God. 

Hume argued very convincingly that empirical proof, entering our knowledge through the narrow window of our finite senses, can never suffice to prove the infinite. Not the infinite in space, not the infinite in time, since we can sample neither one. In particular, however, Hume focussed on the infinite concept we call God. It is fairly easy to see that no observations, no experiments, suffice to empirically prove the existence of God. If a thundering voice comes out of the sky telling us to bow down and be afraid, is it God? Is it an advanced race10.1 as of Space Aliens (maybe even space aliens who are here To Serve Man10.2)? Only completely consistent empirical proof of Godlike Power throughout all space and all time and beyond would suffice, although I'm sure a really plausible alien could go a long way without being suspected just as Cortez went a long way in Mexico without being suspected. 

Rational proof is even more out of the question, since any attempt at a rational proof will require axioms, and axioms are, as we've hammered home repeatedly in this book, not provable. Even given a fairly reasonable, not too controversial set of axioms, many attempts at proofs, many attempts to even discuss the concept of God involve self-referential categorical superlatives and rapidly leave you tied up in Gödelian knots.
The Fundamental Axioms of Religion:


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


unoriginal much?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes you have... butt that is only so you can have some wiggle room in your 6k to 14k fantasy !


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


olar \Po"lar\, a. [Cf. F. polaire. See Pole of the earth.]
   1. Of or pertaining to one of the poles of the earth, or of a
      sphere; situated near, or proceeding from, one of the
      poles; as, polar regions; polar seas; polar winds.
      [1913 Webster]

   2. Of or pertaining to the magnetic pole, or to the point to
      which the magnetic needle is directed.
      [1913 Webster]

   3. (Geom.) Pertaining to, reckoned from, or having a common
      radiating point; as, polar coordinates.
      [1913 Webster]

   Polar axis, that axis of an astronomical instrument, as an
      equatorial, which is parallel to the earths axis.



explain this has anything to do with god or creationism?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



a non credible source ....creation science is an oxymoron  : x·y·mo·ron [ òksee máw ròn ]   
expression with contradictory words: a phrase in which two words of contradictory meaning are used together for special effect, e.g. "wise fool" or "legal murder"
Synonyms: inconsistency, absurdity, irony, contradiction, contradiction in terms, oxymoron, enigma, puzzle


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Boss,  _et al,_
> 
> This is the case of the "round-tuit."
> 
> ...


when I was young my best friend's dad had a "round tuit" carved out of a pine stump..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


there is no quantifiable evidence to prove that.
it's the ultimate because I said so..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


ywc has not or seems not to notice that boss is ignoring his advances!


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling  his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


please use phrases and words you know ..FALSE PREMISE  is not within you skill set.
you have shown consistently you have no concept of what a false premise is.
that's odd, as ALL your arguments stem from a zealot like belief in a false premise.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you still don't see it or you're refusing to acknowledge the difference between what hollie said and what you said. 

"billions of people once believed that the earth was flat,"-Hollie

"You said that billions of believers believed in a flat earth"-slap dick.


next time you proclaim the bible is not flawed read this post.
talk about drift...!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling  his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!



Poor, Karl.

I guess he was talking to the wrong gawds.

YouTube


----------



## Wake (Jun 24, 2013)

I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bump1


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling  his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!


wow! boss just took meaningless analogies to a new heights...(pun  intended)
let's try this from a more rational POV.

The Flying Wallendas is the name of a circus act and daredevil stunt performers, most known for performing highwire acts without a safety net. They were first known as The Great Wallendas, but the current name was coined by the press in the 40s and has stayed since. The name in their native German, "Die fliegenden Wallenda", is a rhyme on the title of the Wagner opera, "Der fliegende Holländer" ("The Flying Dutchman").


boss is discounting the fact that Nic Wallenda's family has 80 years of experience .

his talking to god  is a one way conversation.
it's also a form of concentration. 
if you (bossy) make the claim that god helped or he could not have done it with out paranormal assistance. you must prove it .
btw  other stunt performers do not invoke deities and survive.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Wake said:


> I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.



Well, you see... you have warriors like Hollie and Daws, who have devoted their lives to doing everything in their power to derail the conversation, throw the topic off, and continuously belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's difficult to overcome such a veracity of bitter ignorance and prejudice, and try to have a meaningful dialogue. These people are _*religiously*_ committed to refuting and denouncing God, as if their mortal souls depend on it. 

As I stated in the OP argument, this question can never be answered for people who refuse to accept spiritual nature. As long as those people exist, this question will alway be without resolution. That doesn't mean the question can't be definitively answered, it just means you have to first accept spiritual evidence, which requires belief in spiritual nature.

You have to understand, people like Hollie and Daws are afraid of God. The last thing they want, is a God who holds them accountable for their actions, and their small minds, simply can't imagine any other type of God. So we see them spending inordinate amounts of time, posting superfluous garbage, flooding the thread with ad hom and insult, all in order to somehow diminish the power of this God they very much believe in and fear. Now, they will SWEAR they don't believe, but it's apparent they do, and they are just afraid. No other logical explanation for the number of posts they are contributing to a thread about something they don't believe is real. 

What you have to do, is dismiss these cowards and low-lifes, because they don't bring anything to the table in terms of facts or science. In fact, they will abandon their own scientific principles and methods, in order to support their disbelief. We've seen examples in this very thread. They'll defy Darwin, nature, physics, doesn't matter... whatever they have to do in order to keep their balloon of disbelief in the air.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling  his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!
> ...



Well, the tightrope is still up there... Why don't you stroll your happy ass across it, and prove to us that it can be done without God? I didn't say anything about "paranormal assistance" and the proof is in the fact that he did it, and you haven't. You've also not proven his conversation was "one way" and you can't. That's your opinion, which adding $3 to, will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks, I bet. 

The way you fucktards are post-bombing my thread, I would have thought one of you would have been right on his heels, to prove to the crowd that God didn't have anything to do with it, and it was all in his head! Come on, let's see some action? The guy did it, he's the only person to ever do it, and he attests it was through God... prove him wrong!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.
> ...



And as usual, Boss insists that we must accept his claims to the existence of something he calls "spiritual nature" In order to believe in "spiritual nature". 

Obviously, anyone who rejects his unsupported, colloquial and subjective claims to his version of gawds is somehow in denial of his "spiritual entity".


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.
> ...


best argument from an imagined authority ever!
as to your incredibly false accusations I do not hate or fear your fantasy god..neither is my mind small..
your so called logical conclusion is not logical at all as it is not based in fact but in your own inability to  consider an existence without superstition.
not to mention your grossly inflated sense of self worth and intelligence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The typical Boss argument. Others are required to disprove his fallacious claims or his  silly, melodramatic pronunciations or his religious rantings are self-presumed to be true. 

So then, Boss. I have "proven him wrong". Prove I haven't!  <--- I added the exclamation point for a bit of melodrama of my own.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Follow the conversation. Wrong copy and paste for the term.

We were talking the form of biological chemicals, Also like the Dna strand.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




You are a moron.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> And as usual, Boss insists that we must accept his claims to the existence of something he calls "spiritual nature" In order to believe in "spiritual nature".
> 
> Obviously, anyone who rejects his unsupported, colloquial and subjective claims to his version of gawds is somehow in denial of his "spiritual entity".



And as usual, Hollie fires off yet another emotive post to "refute" something she doesn't comprehend. Everything I have claimed in this thread is true, and has not been refuted. Every argumentative point I made in the OP is supported by logic, reasoning, and common sense, as well as science itself. I've not made any claims to my version of god, or anyone's version, for that matter. In fact, I have repeatedly tried to steer the conversation away from minutia regarding religious incarnations of god. I've repeatedly stated that I cannot prove any particular incarnation of god exists, and that is not what the question is about. 

I didn't "claim" spiritual nature exists, I proved it does. You haven't disproved it. In order to do so, you need to find examples in nature where living things created shit from imagination, in order to explain irrational fears, and this behavior has always resided in the species. You can't, because no such example exists. So you are left with your opinion that spiritual nature can't exists because you can't verify it with your five senses or prove it conclusively with physical science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling  his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!



Yes he even asked his father to remain silent so he could speak to God.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


yes it is, so why don't you, if you're so convinced god did it,  it should be easy.
I fairly certain that his conversation was one way.. got any proof it wasn't ?
nic wallenda would be the first to say anyone without the proper training would be a raving ass hat to attempt that stunt with just the so called power of god to rely on.
that being said, wouldn't it be better for you to attempt the crossing to prove your "faith in god is stronger than my faith in training?
if I missed, you could then claim "it was because he lacked faith!
if you missed, then people would say it was gods' will and you you'd have the comfort of faith as your brains  exploded on impact with the canyon floor. 
then god would say "I don't know shit about  wirewalking, why didn't he get some training from the wallendas, they're the experts".


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


sorry slapdick that the only definition in a non biology dictionary..
besides it's not an answer to the question!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > As Daws continues to try and fill the thread up with superfluous nonsense, and the god haters continue to try and derail the topic to bash religion, a man just did something that no human has ever done... He walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. He talked to God the whole way. He credited God for enabling  his feat. Do you think the man would have attempted this, if he couldn't pray or talk to God? Any of you Atheist non-believers want to put your money where your faith isn't, and stroll across the tightrope to "prove" that it can be done without God? Didn't think so!
> ...


so what? a call for silence before attempting a dangerous trip or stunt is customary.
there you go attempting to kiss ass and make more out of it then was intended.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



Yes, you do fear God, and you've chosen to live your life in denouncement of god because of this fear. As long as you refute God, you can establish your own morality, your own boundaries and limitations of decency, and you don't have to be accountable. 

Your mind is small because you've demonstrated it's not open to possibility. Even with science, you tend to want to proclaim science empirical, when it's certainly not. It's VERY possible for science to be completely wrong, and this has been demonstrated thousands of times. Yet, you parade around with your peer-reviewed science journals, acting as if no one can ever question what's in them. If that's not "grossly inflated self worth," I don't know what is. 

There is nothing "superstitious" about human spiritual connection, it is real, it happens every day, and has been happening for as long as man has been here. It's as much a part of nature as physics or science, and this is confirmed by the fact it is humankind's most defining attribute as a species.... always has been, always will be.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'll take this to mean that you're not going to trust your gawds to get you safely across the span.

Maybe your gawds are too busy with their administrative duties?

Or maybe, you're just a poster child for bluster and pretention.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu/chempaths/GenChem-Textbook/The-Shapes-of-Molecules-574.html


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is a picture of the shape of the chemical That I mentioned I will let you locate it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bio...FuWoiQLQnoCgDg&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1538&bih=1111


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

I wonder where daws went ?

He can't google this and I purposely set this trap for you and hollie I know how much you two google to find your answers you won't get this answer unless you have knowledge in chemistry and trigonometry.


Another hint daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It's already been proven it can be done with God, so I have nothing to prove. You want to claim it could be done without god, and hey... the tightrope is still there, go for it! 

Oh, and MY god doesn't have "administrative duties" ...that would be a humanistic attribute, one often found in religious beliefs of god. Again, we see evidence that you do believe in god, you simply reject the god you believe is real. You want to mock and ridicule that incarnation, because it helps to empower your disbelief. It serves as your own evidence god can't be real, after all, he wouldn't let you get away with saying such things, you'd surely be zapped by a bolt of lightning or something... so each day that passes, and some terrible fate hasn't befallen you, it serves as proof to you that god doesn't really exist. 

The thing you can't seem to comprehend, and I can't explain to you, because the god you believe in but reject, has different attributes... is that god can exist in some other incarnation. It doesn't have to be the judgmental Christian god, that's just the incarnation you happen to believe in but are compelled to reject. My god doesn't care how angry you get, or how many insults you hurl at god, or how much time you spend refuting god's existence.


----------



## Wake (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.
> ...



I respect you in general, Boss, but I don't respect this post of yours.

Most of the people who debate this issue have a bias of one kind or another. Furthermore, I don't like overly personal attacks... ad hom fallacies... against others. When reasonable, sure, but paragraph after paragraph? You may as well get it out of your system downstairs.

In response to my tiny little comment you amassed a dissertation on how great and evil Hollie and Daws are. In general I don't give a damn who they may be or what they've said in the pastall that matters is their abilities to understand, reason, respect, and self-control. I don't care. It's not about them. It's about how this topic about whether God exists or not will seemingly never end.

And, you have to admit the irony in your post when you say this: "*So we see them spending inordinate amounts of time, posting superfluous garbage, flooding the thread with ad hom and insult, all in order to somehow diminish the power of this God they very much believe in and fear.*"

...all while committing the very same ad hom fallacies you speak of. I'm not trying to bust your balls my friend, but really? They may or may not be the chuckleheads you'd have me believe, but that's besides the point.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, nowhere did I state that Hollie and Daws are "evil" or "chuckleheads" and it's not an ad hom or insult to point out the truth about someone. They have shown NO ability to understand, reason, respect, or use self control. Most importantly, they've shown no ability to be honest and have an objective conversation. If you are reading that in their perpetual tirades, I'd like to know where? 

Repeatedly, they have attempted to change the topic to a religious debate, so they can bash and rail on the god they believe in, but are angry at, for whatever reason. In spite of numerous attempts, by me, to keep the topic clear of religious debate, they insist on dragging us right back to yet another and then another... it never ends. Daws scours the net for anti-Christian rhetoric to cut and paste, in order to dilute the thread with garbage that is totally unrelated to the topic, because it's the only way Daws knows how to combat what he can't make an argument against. Hollie can't get a sentence out, without confusing spirituality with religious belief. The two of them are on a mission to denounce God, at all costs, they have absolutely NO desire to have an honest discussion.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.



Giving yourself credit for rabid cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is laughable.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Where have you proven "it can be done with God"?

What exactly has been "proven"?

I will give you credit for finally admitting that your agenda with the silly "spiritual nature" business has always been about your gawds.


----------



## Wake (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...








I wish you guys could pull up your big boy and big girl pants and not squabble like children over the bigger picture. 

That's how wars begin, Boss, and people don't like wars.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Gee whiz, Boss. If you're not intellectually or emotionally prepared to have others challenge your opinions (especially your "because I say so", opinions), you shouldn't post those opinions in a public discussion board. 

Did you really think that your "spiritual nature" claims, absent any support, would be accepted on nothing more than your "say so"?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.
> ...



Laughable yep, you won't find the answer there


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


i have to concede that your intentional misconception of myself and others is a defence mechanism you've developed when your ass has been handed to you.
why all the meaningless blather ?
the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


thanks, still is no answer how the proves creationism..loks lik good old
chemistry to me.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.


we did and like always you were wrong.
I don't believe in intelligent design because there is no evidence for it. if there were intelligent  design,I would not need to believe:be·lieve  [bih-leev]  Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

because it would be fact.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Laughable. No doubt. Which makes your propensity for cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya all the more absurd.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Well I did learn something today that Hollie definitely is not daws because he was smart enough not to jump in to something he didn't understand unlike daws lol.
> ...


did like his imaginary trap.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Spherical trigonometry
has no relation to to creationism...
your argument will be some cobbled together shit that you wish would prove your design fantasy....


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




I didn't say "I" proved anything. "IT" was proven. Learn to read. 

One human has done it, he credits God. You need to prove him wrong. Here's your chance to present testable evidence to contradict God, and I say you should go for it! 

Also, I don't know what the fuck you mean about "admitting my agenda" being about "my gawds." I've not admitted any such thing, because it's not true. I have no agenda, other than to challenge the non-believers in their disbeliefs of spiritual nature. There is nothing "silly" about it, you haven't shown evidence that it doesn't exist, and everything you've presented, contradicts nature, Darwin, Science, Logic, and common sense. Since that hasn't worked, you've apparently taken to 'tea leaf reading' from the posts I make, to extract these bizarre things that I never said, which you can then gratify yourself by attacking. 

And... you are so predictable, you are becoming a bore to me.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
in this whole thread you've not proven what you term as spirituality is not something else altogether...
what you've done is formed an hypothesis and are cramming square pegs into round holes by speculation not evidence.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> i have to concede that your intentional misconception of myself and others is a defence mechanism you've developed when your ass has been handed to you.
> why all the meaningless blather ?
> the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.



Let's be clear, if you had "handed my ass to me" at any time during this thread, you would be crowing about the specifics of that event, in every single post, but... not a peep. Instead, we periodically get this "proclamation" from you, that you have indeed refuted the arguments presented in the OP, and I have not been able to counter them. Nothing is further from the truth. You are obviously counting on the fact that you have polluted the thread with page after page of superfluous nonsense, which NO ONE will ever read, and perhaps... just maybe... they won't notice that you failed to refute my argument. 

I believe in something that 95% of humans who have ever existed, also professed belief in, and not only believed in, but believed they received strength and  blessings through. You are the one without evidence to support your claims, I have definitive and irrefutable evidence.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
> in this whole thread you've not proven what you term as spirituality is not something else altogether...
> what you've done is formed an hypothesis and are cramming square pegs into round holes by speculation not evidence.



I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > i have to concede that your intentional misconception of myself and others is a defence mechanism you've developed when your ass has been handed to you.
> ...


I don't need any as you have no definitive and irrefutable proof of anything but your belief that you do.
TO pull a page from your strategy book. I never said I handed you your ass but it's obvious     
you have....
btw you have no real argument. so there is nothing to refute.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You make the amateurish mistake of convincing yourself that your claims and claims of others which you wish to be trus are true until disproved. 

So yes, I have proved that talking to gawds is a fictitious claim. You haven't disproved that.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > i see no evidence of "IT BEING PROVEN BY YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE ..
> ...


hubris in action! 
wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No, you have insisted this is the case *because you say so.* You've proven nothing. Every claim I have made, is supported with evidence, while every claim you make, is supported by your opinion. Realizing the total vulnerability of your unfounded opinions, you've decided to stave off this criticism by claiming MY arguments are because "I say so."


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, your mind is CLOSED to any possibility of spiritual nature. You've repeatedly made this clear in the thread. "Snake oil" is yet another smug insult, designed to imply that what I have presented is phony and fake. You've not proven it to be, you are simply claiming it is, and we're all supposed to genuflect toward your amazing brilliant wisdom. 

Meanwhile, I have presented billions of human testimonials, who attest to strength and blessings received from spiritual nature, I have presented scientific evidence of animal behaviors, and how they don't exist because they are made up, or as placebos for knowledge and security blankets for irrational fears. You've not been able to counter that point, you continue to ignore it and try desperately to derail the thread topic, so no one can have a dialogue.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're wrong, of course. It's been proven that you're a fraud. You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless. You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose statements. 

In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.

Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to  learn and Improve.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Daws I will give you hint we discussed it earlier in the thread and you don't believe in intelligent design.
> ...



Daws didn't you claim to have an engineering degree but yet you had to look up the term Polar spherical triangle ?if you had an engineering degree you would have taken Trigonometry and would have been familiar with the term. However you would have still not known the chemical Molecule because I don't think you would of had Biochemistry.

Anyways you should have done what Hollie did and avoided it like the plague.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You made no argument so there was nothing to avoid. 

Your lack of any background in science is obvious as your cutting and pasting from creationist websites makes you look quite foolish. 

Your silly "quotes" were exposed repeatedly as fraudulent and manufactured.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, nowhere did I state that Hollie and Daws are "evil" or "chuckleheads"
> ...



Again, I never claimed either person was evil, and I didn't insinuate it or infer it. If you perceived it, that is a problem with your perception, not what I said. I can't be responsible for how you perceive my posts. I didn't go on a tirade, I merely explained to you why this question will always be without resolution. What I said was blunt, candid, and honest, and I am sorry if that hurt someone's feelings. 



> and it's not an ad hom or insult to point out the truth about someone.
> 
> Oh boy. The creative paths that tangent could take us.
> 
> ...



YOU said: _"In general I don't give a damn who they may be or what they've said in the past&#8212;all that matters is their abilities to understand, reason, respect, and self-control."_

NOW you say: "Beside the issue." Is it "all that matters" or is it "beside the issue?" 



> Most importantly, they've shown no ability to be honest and have an objective conversation.
> 
> You may be honest, but you're not objective, either.



But I am very objective, which is why I have avoided allowing religious theocratic debates to taint the question. I've objectively dismantled every point they've raised, using science, nature and logic. I would be happy to objectively evaluate ANY evidence they have that god doesn't exist, but they haven't presented any. 



> If you are reading that in their perpetual tirades, I'd like to know where?
> 
> I don't care much for their silly tirades, either. Look, I've got a $25 gift card for Applebees. If you promise to be nice you guys can go there using it. All this huff and snuff, puff and fluff is kind of boring, like youngsters who keep bickering about who has the prettiest crayon.



We're not debating crayons. The huff, snuff, puff and fluff, is coming from Hollie, daws, ed, numan, and a few others, who are religiously committed to their disbelief. I get that, and it's why I started my OP argument by addressing it right off the bat. These people are NEVER going to be convinced, not by physical evidence and certainly not with spiritual evidence they don't accept. 



> > Repeatedly, they have attempted to change the topic to a religious debate, so they can bash and rail on the god they believe in, but are angry at, for whatever reason. In spite of numerous attempts, by me, to keep the topic clear of religious debate, they insist on dragging us right back to yet another and then another... it never ends. Daws scours the net for anti-Christian rhetoric to cut and paste, in order to dilute the thread with garbage that is totally unrelated to the topic, because it's the only way Daws knows how to combat what he can't make an argument against. Hollie can't get a sentence out, without confusing spirituality with religious belief. The two of them are on a mission to denounce God, at all costs, they have absolutely NO desire to have an honest discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well you need to talk to Hollie and daws, and the rest of the disbelievers, because they are the source of the juvenile behavior. I am not squabbling, I am pointing out how they are devoid of argumentative points, and acting like petulant children.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> You're wrong, of course. *(because I say so)* It's been proven that you're a fraud. *(because I say so)*You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless.*(because I say so)* You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile *(because I say so)*claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose *(because I say so)*statements.
> 
> In the absense of you offering any positive evidence for what amounts to mere speculation on your part, your subjective opinions are dismissed as nothing more than juvenile " because I say so", argumentation.
> 
> Don't feel bad about being just an average juvrnile. It means you have an opportunity to  learn and Improve.



You have not proven a thing I have said to be wrong. IF ANY OF YOU had done so, you would be posting it in every post, so that everyone could see it for themselves. You've not proven I am a "fraud" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. These are your OPINIONS, and it's kind of important for you to know, that not everyone shares YOUR opinion. Because it happens to be an opinion possessed by your brain, doesn't mean it is an empirical and unassailable truth, and fact of life. I did present evidence, I did make my case, it's all in the OP argument, and anyone is free to go read it for themselves. You have yet to counter my argument, and in fact, continue to reaffirm the first point of the argument, that some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 You asked me a question I answered it for you. Then you ignored my answer and the earlier questions I asked you. The one without a scientific background was you that didn't understand my answer. Ruggedtouch you are a want to be nothing more.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 25, 2013)

My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.



One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection. If humans were not spiritually moved by something, they simply wouldn't be gullible enough to send Oral Roberts money, or believe in knives under the beds, etc. They would be able to see through Oral and wouldn't see any physical evidence that knives were of value under the bed. You think that examples like this, somehow 'disprove' god or spiritual belief, because they are absurd examples, designed to poke fun.... but they are examples, and you found them. Examples of humans practicing their deeply-held spiritual beliefs. 

No argument, humans spiritual connection is sometimes misplaced. After all, there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> ....there are humans in this thread who appear to have adopted science as their spiritual bedrock. If it doesn't conform to their peer-reviewed dogma, it can't be possible, and those who dare to challenge conventional wisdoms are chortled and hooted down as kooks.


Very well said.  Some of my favorite books are written by true scientists who were tossed out on their bums by the "scientific community" for daring to think outside the box, especially when it comes to their theories on so-called "spiritual" matters.  "Spiritual" unfortunately including any thoughts favoring the universe simply being created.  Being blackballed by the "scientific community" means your funding is cut off and the established leaders in the field rebuke you and denounce your work.  You are no longer able to publish any relevant journals and you are left with only one option and that is to write a book and hope that some people read it and get something from it.  

"Established science" and the established "community" represent the very meaning of hypocrisy; they set boundaries--_dogmatic_ boundaries--which, once crossed, earn even (formerly) well-respected scientists a scarlet letter and a severely tarnished reputation.  Hypocritical because it's the Atheists--predominant in this so-called "community"--who fault religious groups for being dogmatic and narrow-minded in precisely the same way.

Thanks for your refreshing post, boss.  Someone actually gets it.

Thumbs up.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.


After glossing over a couple of pages, it seems to me that you and Hollie have collectively decided that because you haven't personally witnessed any evidence for spiritual things, they should get summarily dumped in the "disproven" bucket.  That seems like a stretch to me.

There are countless otherwise completely credible and respectable people who have had what they are absolutely certain are spiritual experiences.  Your only evidence _against_ their claims, is that you both personally haven't witnessed such a thing and (I presume) these claims can't be re-created for you on demand in a test lab.

I can completely understand your skepticism.  I'm skeptical of most claims regarding ghosts as well.  But I certainly can't call myself reasonable if I go around saying all claims involving the existence of ghosts have been "disproven."  All I can do is say I will remain skeptical until I observe or experience something that changes my mind.  In the same vein, you and Hollie--if you want to be considered rational and reasonable--should do the same when it comes to spiritual matters.

Is it too much to ask that you not claim something "disproven" when the only evidence you have in support for such a claim is your personal lack of evidence?  It occurs to me that this might be more a matter of humility--and the lack thereof--than actual, reasonable debate.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



His "because I say so" claims? You're the one claiming to have done something simply because you've said so.

As for opportunities to learn and improve. That's the problem with Atheism and certain brands of agnosticism. When you claim you can't know something, you never learn it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Avatar4321 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your comment is fairly typical of religious fundamentalists. You share a revulsion for anyone who doesnt embrace your religious dogma.

Few fundies, even the most fundamentalist of fundies are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their foundations can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily sold on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science. 

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong, of course. *(because I say so)* It's been proven that you're a fraud. *(because I say so)*You're nonsensical "because I say so" claims are pointless.*(because I say so)* You demonstrated that convincingly with the amateurish and juvenile *(because I say so)*claim that others are under some obligation to disprove your belllicose *(because I say so)*statements.
> ...



Funny stuff, Boss. You're ranting like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior. It's quite revealing. 

What is curious is your dogmatic insistence that you have actually proven anything with you continued "because I say so" argumentation. Your false assumptions begin with the "appeal to emotion" style you have continued throughout the thread followed by the "appeal to supernaturalism" argument. These are boilerplate creationist tactics. 

I'm afraid your "because I say so", tactics have fallen the way of snake oil sales tactics.  As we see so often with religious fundamentalists, appeals to fear, supernaturalism and your silly "spiritual nature", thingy are convenient detours around reason and rationality when your limitations cause you to not to care for the effort required to actually learn about a subject that might conflict with your fundamentalist beliefs. 

Just don't expect your "because I say so" argument to hold merit in the grown-up world.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.
> ...


----------



## Wake (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



OK, I understand better the kind of person you are based on your actions here. You hold yourself in the highest esteem and can do no wrong. Look, I get it. Hollie and daws alone are the bad guys, and you're, like, totally not a part of the problem at all. That, and you're willing to double down on your immature finger-pointing while refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. You may be right about Hollie and daws. You may not. But, don't pretend your own crap doesn't stink, either.

All you're doing is screaming "It's them! It's them! Don't look at me! It's them! Look at the disbelievers!!!"

Please. Stop. You three have been less than civil during your discussion of this issue, which has been beaten into oblivion. If I didn't know better, you three are using this topic as a way to take petty & personal swipes at each other. And what really galls me is that you still refuse to acknowledge how annoying your personal and indirect swipes were at your enemies when I simply said: "I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.."

It's stupid how you then used that as a canvas to take your stupid little potshots at them, and then when it's pointed out how unsporting that is you actually try to defend your actions as if you think I won't see right through you. If you were wise, you would have responded to my actual comment with something that actually pertains to what I said, instead of repeatedly smearing them as if that'd pass as some sort of half-assed response to me. I make a comment about the immortality of lemonade, and you use it to say how dislikeable and dubious certain others are. That's essentially what you've done, and it's both annoying and amusing in the strangest way, especially considering your inability to admit when you've made mistakes. Leave your personal crap out of it if you're going to respond to an on-topic comment.



Youwerecreated said:


> *You are a moron.*





Hollie said:


> *Maybe your gawds are too busy with their administrative duties?*
> 
> *Or maybe, you're just a poster child for bluster and pretention. *





Boss said:


> *I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement. *





daws101 said:


> *wrong again ! my mind is open and it perceives that you are selling snake oil.*



Look at you. You're all arguing like butthurt, angry children who are mad that they can't get their ways. Gee, youwerecreated, you're making laconic people look bad. Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up. Boss, with his superiority complex, argues with the self-righteousness of an angry Frasier Crane. And daws, for all you intellectual bluster you'd think you'd work on your spelling and grammar.

You've turned this discussion into nothing more than your petty little sandbox where you can attack and snipe the other children because you think you can. This isn't about you. It's not about your personal vendettas, your butthurt prescriptions, or your need to beat your opponents into submission. It's about whether there's definitive proof that God exists. You want a serious discussion with a lot of thought and an equal amount of respect and civility? Clean up your messes, and get back to me when you're ready to actually converse on God like grownups.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...



I am sorry I am a little rude sometimes. I have tried to be civil with Hollie and Daws it just does not work. Yes I have turned the tables on them and have given back what I have gotten. Someone calling you slapdick and those sorts of names then someone constantly talking about my background in a subject they know nothing about gets a little old so then  yes I do get pleasure out of revealing their ignorance and dishonesty.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Wake said:


> Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up.



Wound up? Nah. Just having a little fun with the boy.

Sarcastic? Yes. I've found that sarcasm is among the most ingenious of literary devices.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Look at little miss Hollie, all sarcastic and wound up.
> ...



You are mistaken because you were seen as a Troll in the understanding Islam forum and this one as well.

You make the common mistake of trying to debate something you don't understand.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wake said:
> ...


I've refuted all of the falsified "quotes" you have mined from Harun Yahya and your various creation ministries.

I've found that facts have always sent you packing while you scour fundie websites for more lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You think repeating the same nonsense adds validity to your claims ? Give me a list of falsified quotes I have used. Then show me how they were refuted.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Refuting your falsified "quotes" was actually a simple matter. 

It was also interesting to note that you posted the same falsified 'quotes" on more than one occasion.  You had obviously forgotten that you were caught in an earlier lie but tried to lie again. 

Why don't you find those lies you posted and link them.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You made the accusation now back it up. You must have me mistaken with yourself and daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Go to the "Creationist" thread. You can find them.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/5781712-post6817.html

Here's one. Even on a smart phone these are easy to find.

Do you recall your "quotes" that were mined from the ICR? 

Falsified "quotes" by Niles Eldridge and others that you routinely and dishonestly dumped in the thread. You have forgotten that your falsified "quotes", at least a dozen, were expised as frauds.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.



Here's another 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6666609 

Would you like more? No problem. 

You can thank me later.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.
> ...



I am familiar with the site but what quote did I use that was refuted ? and do you believe everyone who attacks creationists ?

You're silly.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.



Even when you were caught in a lie, you tried to lie you way out of your lie. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668336-post14182.html 

You're welcome. More? 

"Shirley" you don't think we're done yet.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.
> ...



You're such a silly fool.

Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.

SMALL CHANGES WITHIN A FAMILY IS NOT LARGE SCALE EVOLUTION GOT IT !


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> ...  and your silly "spiritual nature", thingy are convenient detours around reason and rationality




Surly Hollie, what living creature does not have a Spiritual Nature ?

why would there be a need for reason and rationality without it - for discovering the unknown and discerning Good from Evil?






> *Agent.Tom:*
> 
> Very well said. Some of my favorite books are written by true scientists who were tossed out on their bums by the "scientific community" for daring to think outside the box, especially when it comes to their theories on so-called "spiritual" matters. "Spiritual" unfortunately including any thoughts favoring the universe simply being created. Being blackballed by the "scientific community" means your funding is cut off and the established leaders in the field rebuke you and denounce your work. You are no longer able to publish any relevant journals and you are left with only one option and that is to write a book and hope that some people read it and get something from it.
> 
> *"Established science" and the established "community" represent the very meaning of hypocrisy; they set boundaries--dogmatic boundaries--which, once crossed, earn even (formerly) well-respected scientists a scarlet letter and a severely tarnished reputation.* Hypocritical because it's the Atheists--predominant in this so-called "community"--who fault religious groups for being dogmatic and narrow-minded in precisely the same way.




*"Established science" and the established "community" represent the very meaning of hypocrisy; they set boundaries--dogmatic boundaries--which, once crossed, earn even (formerly) well-respected scientists a scarlet letter and a severely tarnished reputation.*


that simply is not true - or rather religious text has been proven otherwise and the their community is irrationally unwilling to accept the results.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie you still have yet to show a quote I used and how it has been refuted.


----------



## Surfer (Jun 25, 2013)

Some of the best doctors are Christians and Jews. 
Some great preachers have degrees in science.
Some of the really good scientists are/were Christians and Jews.
I don't know much but I do know Jesus Christ died for my sins, God is The Great I Am, the earth is round and science is awesome.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Those falsified 'quotes" you posted are once again coming back to haunt you. 

How strange that you had forgotten about the lies you posted and which are again exposing you as a liar.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You have yet to show one you ignoramus.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're angry. I understand you had hoped your history of lies would not come back to haunt you. 

They did. Does Harun Yahya pay you by the falsified quote?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 billions my ass! you've present your opinion on on the subject ..


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.



Pure comedy gold.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6668480-post14186.html


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am still waiting Ruggedtouch.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


too many meds at dinner ? 
this answer has nothing to do with the statement.
and no slapdick I never "claimed" an engineering degree because I have one!  
as always you're making false assumptions.
I looked up Polar spherical triangle because I'd never seen it used in a chemistry context.
btw you've not produced it yet.
I'm highly familiar with Polar spherical triangle in a design context. 
so once again in your quest to find fault with others the fault is in you.


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Regardless of how your imagination perceives my tone, I am neither angry or petulant. You should read it again, and this time, imagine me as a condescending professor, making you feel very small at mid-semester, for the inadequate work you've turned in so far. 



> What is curious is your dogmatic insistence that you have actually proven anything with you continued "because I say so" argumentation. Your false assumptions begin with the "appeal to emotion" style you have continued throughout the thread followed by the "appeal to supernaturalism" argument. These are boilerplate creationist tactics.



Insisting I have proven something? Where? I stated very clearly in the OP, the question of god's existence can't be proven to you. Not in 3k posts, not in 10k posts, not *EVER.* You are one of those who reject spiritual nature, and I acknowledged you in the first paragraph. I've never claimed to be able to prove anything to you, and openly admitted it was impossible to ever prove god to you. 

You've misinterpreted my argument completely, if you thought it was me trying to prove something to you. Perhaps you think so highly of yourself, you believe that I am trying to "win your soul" or something? That I have some "calling" to bring you over to God? I assure you, I couldn't care less.  I actually think God is coming out on the better end of the deal by you not believing. I know I would be better off if I didn't have to keep correcting your wrong-headed assumptions and assertions. Why can't you just not believe in me? Just pretend this thread is a figment of your imagination, caused by your massively complex brain? It's not really here, you're just weak and need some security blanket to ease your fears, so you've made this all up in your head! 



> I'm afraid your "because I say so", tactics have fallen the way of snake oil sales tactics.  As we see so often with religious fundamentalists, appeals to fear, supernaturalism and your silly "spiritual nature", thingy are convenient detours around reason and rationality when your limitations cause you to not to care for the effort required to actually learn about a subject that might conflict with your fundamentalist beliefs.
> 
> Just don't expect your "because I say so" argument to hold merit in the grown-up world.



As the OP shows, and everyone can read, I have laid out a case, complete with physical and spiritual evidence to support it. There is nothing in my argument which is there because I proclaim it has to be so, it is all supported by either science or spiritual evidence. Meanwhile, you've presented nothing from science to disprove God, you continue to use pejorative context when speaking of spirituality, and act as though you have some hubris enlightenment the rest of us don't have, and are too ignorant to gain. It is totally hypocritical for you to be accusing others of making "because I say so" arguments, when that is essentially ALL you have presented.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > HOLLIE,I will be waiting for the quotes I used, and how you supposedly refuted those quotes.
> ...



Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the facts are simple, you believe in something you cannot prove ,so to fit your skewed POV you attempt to change the rules.
> ...


thanks ..but you assume too much.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


the above statement is false.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're contradicting yourself. If you knew what it was why couldn't you point out the picture of the molecule that was is in that form ?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





I told you on the first or second day that you posted this nonsense that just because people heard thunder and thought God was bowling in the sky is not evidence of anything except ignorance fueled by a very vivid imagination which is simply a function of the mind attempting to resolve the fear of the unknown.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another so what statement by Ywc ...
there is no evidence linking punctuated equilibrium to creationism.
punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism:the actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

 Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism. It is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly (relative to the species geological existence), changes are still occurring incrementally, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).

Punctuated Equilibrium is frequently contrasted with phyletic gradualism, though critics, notably Richard Dawkins, have argued that phyletic gradualism is merely a straw man. Eldredge and Gould's advocacy of the theory brought punctuated equilibrium much attention, especially since they phrased it in terms that made it appear to be a radical re-thinking of evolutionary theory. The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis." Some detractors among evolutionary biologists wryly termed punctuated equilibrium "evolution by jerks." (It is now sometimes referred to by the slang "punk eek," with no negative connotations implied.) The actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
PALEAUTONOMY.COM: Evolution - Punctuated Equilibrium

liar liar pants on fire!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another false assumption!
It's not that I couldn't point out the picture ..I chose not too.
I will not be "tested" by you in any manner.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc. 

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > My grandmother, who was born around the turn of the 20th century, always made sure that a knife was placed uder the birthing bed of any woman having a baby, because it would "cut the birthing pains". She was absolutely positive of this, and I am sure that she went to her grave in her late 80's believing it, just like she believed that God frequently spoke to Oral Roberts, and told him to tell her to send her money to him.
> ...





Not at all, Boss. One man's superstition is another man's faith. My X wife was a Christian, and thouroughly believed that her parents and late husband were speaking to her in her sleep. 

The only difference between my grandmother's knife, and mainstream Christianity is that one was passed down by oral tradition, and one was passed down through ancient scrolls. We can all rest easier today, because the Aztecs, who sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people to their gods, had no scrolls.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


with another false statement.


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

Wake said:


> OK, I understand better the kind of person you are based on your actions here.



No you don't. You are making assumptions about what kind of person you think I am, based on your perceptions and interpretations of what I have posted here. You don't know me, you don't know the first thing about me, and that is the beauty of anonymous message boards. I can be any way I please, and you can perceive me any way you please. 



> You hold yourself in the highest esteem and can do no wrong. Look, I get it. Hollie and daws alone are the bad guys, and you're, like, totally not a part of the problem at all. That, and you're willing to double down on your immature finger-pointing while refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. You may be right about Hollie and daws. You may not. But, don't pretend your own crap doesn't stink, either.



You should turn off avatars if they are going to make you develop irrational assumptions about people's personalities. Yeah, I know Kelsey Grammar plays characters who hold themselves in highest esteem and can do no wrong, but I am not a Kelsey Grammar character. It's just an avatar I picked to fit my moniker, Boss. 

I get what you are doing here, don't think I can't see it. You are playing the "moderator" role... pretending to be in the middle, like a referee or judge, to sort out who is right and wrong, and make a somewhat more sophisticated and rational evaluation than the rest of us. Unfortunately, the thread topic isn't related to personalities, it doesn't matter what kind of person you think I am, or what kind of person Hollie and daws are. At the end of the day, the OP argument stands and has not been refuted. Oh... and my crap definitely stinks!



> All you're doing is screaming "It's them! It's them! Don't look at me! It's them! Look at the disbelievers!!!"



No I'm not. Again, this is your warped perspective and misinterpretation. I'm not going to sit here like a pinata and not respond to relentless personal attacks and lies. When someone lies about something I've said, I am going to point that out, and I may use a rather harsh tone, because I don't like being lied about. Pull your head out of your ass and read the OP, then read the pathetic attempts made to argue against the OP. I don't want you to "look at the disbelievers," I want you to evaluate the argument in the OP, and have a rational discussion with me about that, but you seem compelled to defend Hollie and daws, who have done nothing but antagonize and try to derail the thread, amid a barrage of insults and condescension. 



> Please. Stop. You three have been less than civil during your discussion of this issue, which has been beaten into oblivion. If I didn't know better, you three are using this topic as a way to take petty & personal swipes at each other. And what really galls me is that you still refuse to acknowledge how annoying your personal and indirect swipes were at your enemies when I simply said: "I've seen this debate continue for well over a decade... and it doesn't seem like it will ever reach a definitive resolution.."



YOU please stop! I certainly didn't post this thread so I could take pot shots at Hollie and daws, whom I didn't even realize existed when I posted the thread! All I did, was explain to you why this debate continues, and will always continue. Yeah, I am going to take some personal swipes at people who have repeatedly LIED about what I've said, misconstrued things I've said, accused me of things without basis, and continue to behave like petulant brats. That does not diminish the thread OP or my argument one little bit. 



> It's stupid how you then used that as a canvas to take your stupid little potshots at them, and then when it's pointed out how unsporting that is you actually try to defend your actions as if you think I won't see right through you. If you were wise, you would have responded to my actual comment with something that actually pertains to what I said, instead of repeatedly smearing them as if that'd pass as some sort of half-assed response to me. I make a comment about the immortality of lemonade, and you use it to say how dislikeable and dubious certain others are. That's essentially what you've done, and it's both annoying and amusing in the strangest way, especially considering your inability to admit when you've made mistakes. Leave your personal crap out of it if you're going to respond to an on-topic comment.



Nothing I said about them was untrue. Unsporting? There is no "sport" here! Do you think we are engaged in some epic debate, where both sides are presenting reasonable and rational viewpoints? We have my OP argument, which I have defended, and we have Hollie and daws doing everything they can think of to denigrate me, insult me, ridicule me, attack me, lie about me, distort what I've said, etc. They have presented absolutely NO evidence to support their suppositions, they just pour on more insults and insist they've proven me wrong. You think that is "sporting?" Maybe you should get a job refereeing for the WWE. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you see, jackass. It's not my problem what your ignorant closed-minded ass sees and doesn't see. You must apparently believe YOU are GOD, judging by your self-aggrandizement. *
> ...



My comment wasn't an argument, it was a statement. I stand by it. Again, I suggest you turn off avatars if it causes you to assume the person posting is the person in the avatar. I'm not Frasier Crane. 



> You've turned this discussion into nothing more than your petty little sandbox where you can attack and snipe the other children because you think you can. This isn't about you. It's not about your personal vendettas, your butthurt prescriptions, or your need to beat your opponents into submission. It's about whether there's definitive proof that God exists. You want a serious discussion with a lot of thought and an equal amount of respect and civility? Clean up your messes, and get back to me when you're ready to actually converse on God like grownups.



This is MY thread, I started it, I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. I've not turned anything into anything, I stated in the OP that some people can't accept spiritual evidence, and there has been plenty of examples in this thread to prove that point correct. I have defended my argument whenever it has been challenged, but frankly, Hollie and daws have offered the least challenge to the OP of anyone here. If you've read any of this massive thread at all, you understand that. I've already pointed out to you, they have NO intention of engaging a reasonable rational debate on the topic, they are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult, mock, make fun of religion and religious people, and further enable their disbelief. Daws has single-handedly posted reams of superfluous nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, in an attempt to flood the thread so no one can have a conversation. I guess you must interpret that as "sporting and rational," while me calling him out for his dishonest tactics, is "petulant and childish." 

I've BEEN ready to converse like a grown up on the topic, when are you going to start?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)




----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality. 

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the *rational* mind tell us? 

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute.


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


>



Is THIS "unsporting" Wake? Or what you would consider "rational and reasonable discourse?"

How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I would agree that the belief is hard to dispute, as to what "spirituality" actually is ,is extremely disputable ..


----------



## Wake (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



You ought to reread my post, Boss. All *four* of you have been unsporting, with your personal snipes and uncivil behavior towards one another.

I'm waiting for you four to act like civil adults. Otherwise, I have no interest in having a discussion on my favorite topic here... because you four have turned it into your own boxing arena.

It's sort of tough to have an adult conversation with people when quite a few of those same people are like children having their little tantrums. Grow up, stop attacking each other, and show some self-control.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


it's highly sporting considering the whiney tone of :

"This is MY thread, I started it, I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. I've not turned anything into anything, I stated in the OP that some people can't accept spiritual evidence, and there has been plenty of examples in this thread to prove that point correct. I have defended my argument whenever it has been challenged, but frankly, Hollie and daws have offered the least challenge to the OP of anyone here. If you've read any of this massive thread at all, you understand that. I've already pointed out to you, they have NO intention of engaging a reasonable rational debate on the topic, they are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult, mock, make fun of religion and religious people, and further enable their disbelief. Daws has single-handedly posted reams of superfluous nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, in an attempt to flood the thread so no one can have a conversation. I guess you must interpret that as "sporting and rational," while me calling him out for his dishonest tactics, is "petulant and childish." 

I've BEEN ready to converse like a grown up on the topic, when are you going to start?"-boss.


----------



## Wake (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"



Hell, I shouldn't *have* to chastise you guys. All of you are presumably adults, and should know that it's not nice to call other people names.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Wake said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > How about showing some consistency, and chastise daws like you did me, for being "unsporting?"
> ...


too true...for my part I'm just playing to the house.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection.



That was a lot of pontificating trying to rescue a bankrupt argument. You succeeded in making superstition, gullibility and "spiritual connection" indistinguishable from one another. 
People having "spiritual connections" to Zeus and the Greek gawds, jinn, Leprechauns, spirits, spooks, or any previously asserted gawds share a common thread: they're all asserted by those who have a vested interest in self-promotion. 

Fear is a common tactic used to coerce behavior. The installation of fear via threats  of punishnent from angry gawds, spirits, etc., has been the history of religious belief. There is nothing that separates the fear and superstition surrounding the Greek gawds from your gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium 


Definition 

noun 

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation. 


grad·u·al·ism  

/&#712;grajo&#862;o&#601;&#716;liz&#601;m/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You are so ignorant.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/&#712;grajo&#862;o&#601;&#716;liz&#601;m/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the PUNCTUATIONIST model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is no lack of transitional fossils. This boilerplate creationist claim has been refuted many times. 

Your creation ministries have an agenda that strives to keep you ignorant and uninformed


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Quote from your link.

"Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding evolution, but accords with others."


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

So which theory do you believe ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > One is superstition and the other is gullibility. Both are strong evidence of human spiritual connection.
> ...



What you don't seem to realize here, is you keep pointing to things which strongly indicate a vociferous human connection to spirituality. You continue to want to indicate this attribute is rooted in "fears" but whenever we examine the rest of nature, we see no such evidence these fears exist or are rational. The truth is, these "fears" come from our ability to spiritually connect, and that is why there are no other examples present in nature. You've simply reversed this around, so that our irrational fears caused us to create spirituality, and nothing in nature supports your argument. 

You say that people who have "spiritual connection" are self-promoting, but how many Jews were self-promoting through Judaism in Nazi Germany? Yes, some religions can be very self-promoting, and humans are vulnerable because they DO spiritually connect. Otherwise, people would be able to realize self-promotion and nonsense, and abandon the practice. They wouldn't be "afraid" of what is going to happen to their souls after they die. But they ARE! They always have been and always will be, for the most part. It's because we are burdened by the ability to spiritually connect.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This is all subjective evidence nothing but an opinion through a vivid imagination. Fuck dumbshit you didn't even understand the difference in punctuated equilibrium and Gradualism.

Which is now Neodarwinism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Heck you can't debate with people that are to ignorant to debate.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your silly conspiracies won't refute the evidence. 

Your creation ministries serve only to placate the ignorance you aspire to.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Bullshit. To do that you would have to BE a grown up first, and you are not, not by a long shot. Now is where you tell me that I am worse than you.

You are also boring as hell.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And your ignorance doesn't make PE any less true, you damned liar.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Heck you can't debate with people that are to ignorant to debate.



Against your compelling and authoritative "_Fuck dumbshit you didn't..._, no, fundie creationists truly are too ignorant to debate.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Heck you can't debate with people that are to ignorant to debate.



They don't want to debate or engage in any reasonable discussion. All they want to do is vent, ridicule and gloat over their 'wins'.

Just a bunch of poop throwing libtard clowns with very few exceptions.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh my. The fundies have arrived.


----------



## MDiver (Jun 25, 2013)

Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists.  I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra.  Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one.  This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?"  His response was, "yes."  Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> So which theory do you believe ?



CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

Or, "the gawds did it". But your silly conspiracies work too.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Heck you can't debate with people that are to ignorant to debate.
> ...



As expected, those screeching the loudest against the factual data and hard (pun intended) evidence for transitional fossils are the Christian fundies.  


But then again, who else but the Christian fundies are loading their posts with "poop". AS their sacred cows are marched into the glaring light of scrutiny, they do tend to get angry, vicious and begin hurling obscenities.

Lovely, lovely folks them-there good xtians.

CC200: Transitional fossils

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record. 


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90. 
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59. 


Response:
1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Again, you flee from rational discussion of the merits of the claims and fall back on stupid secularists tricks any dog can learn.

Here Hollie, fetch.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That was predictable. In the face of evidence that refutes your gawds, your only option is to spam the thread.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Good for you, Hollie-dog. But I am not arguing for YEC or any of its variations.

I am simply pointing out that science is not ever at rest and in stasis. Science is constantly churning, revising and adapting to new evidence...except for dogmatic people like you who always seem to filter what you believe through your secularist lenses first.

Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Before Eldredge and Gould alerted their colleagues to the prominence of stasis in the fossil record, most evolutionists considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.[7][19][20] George Gaylord Simpson for example believed that phyletic gradual evolution (called horotely in his terminology) comprised "nine-tenths" (90%) of evolution.[21] Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the putative causes of stasis. Gould was initially attracted to I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis. However this hypothesis was rejected over time,[22] as evidence accumulated against it.[23] Other plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,[24][25] stabilizing selection,[26] the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,[27] constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,[26] normalizing clade selection,[28] and koinophilia.[29][30]
> 
> Evidence for the existence of stasis has also been corroborated from the genetics of sibling species, species which are morphologically indistinguishable, but whose proteins have diverged sufficiently to suggest they have been separated for millions of years.[31] According to Gould "stasis may emerge as the theory's most important contribution to evolutionary science."[32]
> 
> ...



ha


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You have refuted nothing except cobwebs of what little mind you have left.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

MDiver said:


> Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists.  I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
> To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra.  Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
> I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one.  This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
> I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?"  His response was, "yes."  Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.



That ignoramuses like you think that the arguments in favor of an eternal Creator are the equivalent of some bullshit fantasy you pull out of your ass, just demonstrates beyond question that you do not have the foggiest notion of what the Abrahamic faiths teach about the Creator.

You would be better off reading a while more before further displaying what ignorance you labor under on this topic.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



As usual, you make no sense. "Secularism" has nothing to do with the facts of evolutionary science and paleontology.

Your young earth creationism being challenged causes you to react with pith and vinegar just as what's-his-name does.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Heck you can't debate with people that are to ignorant to debate.
> ...



The mark of someone who truly understands a subject is their ability to debate well for all sides involved.

Your conceit and hubris prevent you from even going to the bother of listening, much less understanding anything.

You are an embarrassment to modern civilization as your ignorance is shameful and repulsive.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> As usual, you make no sense. "Secularism" has nothing to do with the facts of evolutionary science and paleontology.



They have bearing on the predisposition of the individual scientists in question. For example, the quickness with which Piltdown Man was accepted as genuine by gullible secularists who were also scientists demonstrates.



Hollie said:


> Your young earth creationism being challenged causes you to react with pith and vinegar just as what's-his-name does.



You silly ignoramus, I am not a young Earth Creationist.

But of course, you know what I think better than I do, no doubt, roflmao.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The mark of someone who truly understands a subject is their ability to debate well for all sides involved... and debates with tactics involving "_Fuck dumbshit you didn't..._, 

How clever of you to endorse such inspiring debate.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We are not in a debate since you refuse to read and respond to what people post that is contrary to your own beliefs.

You are nothing more than an internet bully and a moral fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, you make no sense. "Secularism" has nothing to do with the facts of evolutionary science and paleontology.
> ...



You have issues understanding what you are. 

Let's just agree that you're confused and befuddled. 

Did you know that the fossil record is compiled among a worldwide conspiracy of _evilutionists_ who sneak out under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels and plant the fossil evidence? You knew that right?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I admit that I am at a loss to refute "_Fuck dumbshit you didn't..._

Why don't you take that on.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > So which theory do you believe ?
> ...



Your dogmatic site again.

You have yet to answer the question time to ignore you once again.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no answer other than "the gawds did it".

In the 4,000 years or so since the animals left Noah's Ark, there simply would not have been time available for the fossil record as we know it. 

Therefore, the fossil record is a conspiracy and the gawds are proven true.  

We should burn those atheistic evilutionist science frauds at the stake.

How you miss the Dark Ages, eh?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ignore once again? That's like the 15th time now.

Cheer up. When you feel safe from your humiliation at being confronted with the lies, falsified "quotes" and creationist nonsense you previously posted and which I linked you to, you may return for another drubbing. 

Do your gawds really approve of lies, falsified "quotes" and such behavior?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yeah and? Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
put on your man pants an admit you're talking out your ass.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> So which theory do you believe ?


Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not  separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating  a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname  slapdick.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


ha ha ha : Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> > Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists.  I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
> ...


reading what? more unprovable axioms more religious treatises based on the original  false premise?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


rather than admit he's full of shit, ywc goes for the hackneyed and false CONSPIRACY PLOY.
sorry slapdick that won't wash....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > So which theory do you believe ?
> ...



Really in his own words.


"The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

What did he just say ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I really wish we could meet in person.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 25, 2013)

"There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality. 

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us? 

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute. "

No, I am not curious as to why mankind universally creates gods. Man need to find a reason for the randomness of life. Why does that one die, and that one live? There must be something that causes us to thrive, while they starve. The planets move in predictable patterns, Therefore, some superior force controls them. All the acncient religions focused on astrology, from the druids to the azteks, to the Egyptions. One must make sense of a random world, in which seemly unfair things happen all the time. That is why almost half the nation still believes the the JFK killing was a conspiracy. Man can not accept that the most powerful man in the world was brought down by a twentysomething year old loser with a $10 rifle.

I used to live in Vegas. I played blackjack a lot, just for entertainment. Everyone in Vegas believes that there are hidden patterns to random events. Even I began to believe after about three years that I would always win on the hand following being delt a natural blackjack, and that I would lose on the hand following a "push". I sat at a table one night where a woman would get out of her chair, and flap her arms and cluck like a chicken, every time she was delt a blackjack, because she believed it was "good luck". The azteks needed a god who would bring them victories over their enemies. They were not about to leave that up to chance, so they created one, and sacraficed victims to him. The superstition stopped being a superstition, and became a religion. Then the preisthood class was formed. They had an inside track, because they could predict the longest day of the year and the shortest day of the year, as well as comets. Obviously, only people who can speak to gods can do this. My grandmother believed that if she had to walk to the bus stop tomorrow, all she had to do was to pray that it would not rain the night before. She eventually got to the state of mind that she did not recall the failures in her prayers, only the sucesses. The same thing is true of gamblers in Vegas. They will tell you about the $6,000 jackpot they won, but fail to remember the $7,000 they lost in the preceeding 2 months. 

I am not going to convice you that there is no spirituality, or god, just as I could not convice the Catholic church that the pope is not infalable. The truth is that there are some of us who can live with the randomness and unfairness of life, while most people simply can't handle it, and choose to believe that it is all an ordered universe and that god simply works in mysterious ways.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


still trying to wiggle out

Saltationism[edit]
The punctuational nature of punctuated equilibrium has engendered perhaps the most confusion over Eldredge and Gould's theory. Gould's sympathetic treatment of Richard Goldschmidt,[34] the controversial geneticist who advocated the idea of "hopeful monsters," only exacerbated the matter, which lead some biologists to conclude that Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[35][36][37][38] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism.[39] In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[40] Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.[41]


Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[35][36][37][38] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism.[39] In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not know


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


IT would be a hoot to see you make an ass of yourself in public.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.


dreamin' is free.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

So daws do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.
> 
> You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?
> 
> ...


major bump!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> So case do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?


Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly workingWe see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages."-
Darwin 

Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend  though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just know that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.- Stephen jay Gould.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Don't spend any time addressing the fact that Christian creationists do no research, publish no peer review work or perform no field experimentation to counter the fact of evolution. 

Heres a thought. I have a method for testing for the existence of the tooth fairy. The primary asserted effect of the tooth fairy is the exchange of teeth for monetary reward or compensation. This is an event which takes place at a certain place and time and provides directly measurable results. How difficult is it to set up a controlled experiment in which all variables are controlled, access to the room in which a child sleeps with a tooth under their pillow is monitored, all teeth and coins within that room accounted for, and the effect measured with an inventory of both teeth and coins prior to and after following asleep?

Lets have you propose an analogous test for your gawds.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No, it revised gradualism to a point it was not easily recognizable as gradualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_gradualism



> Punctuated gradualism is a microevolutionary hypothesis that refers to a species that has "relative stasis over a considerable part of its total duration [and] underwent periodic, relatively rapid, morphologic change that did not lead to lineage branching". It is one of the three common models of evolution. While the traditional model of paleontology, the phylogenetic model, states that features evolved slowly without any direct association with speciation, the relatively newer and more controversial idea of punctuated equilibrium claims that major evolutionary changes don't happen over a gradual period but in localized, rare, rapid events of branching speciation. Punctuated gradualism is considered to be a variation of these models, lying somewhere in between the phyletic gradualism model and the punctuated equilibrium model. It states that speciation is not needed for a lineage to rapidly evolve from one equilibrium to another but may show rapid transitions between long-stable states.





Yeah, gradualism that is punctuated and not gradual...sure, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


thanks for confirming what gould said.
even if it was tautological....


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the conspiracy spin redux..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong  and taking responsibility .....?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.



Its just uncanny how Christian creationist arguments all seem to derive from the same, seedy corner of fundamentalist ministries.

CC201: Phyletic gradualism

Claim CC201:
If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes. 


Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pg. 78. 
Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things no. 6, p. 15-22, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Response:
1. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets: 
a. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants. 
b. The transformation is even and slow. 
c. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population. 
d. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range. 

However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region. 

Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction). 

It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.

[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4). 

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152). 

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10). 
"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433). 

2. The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.

3. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.

4. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



It's been replaced with the more intellectual likes of ywc by way of: 

"_Fuck dumbshit you didn't even understand the difference in punctuated equilibrium and Gradualism_."

He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate and earned his PHD there. Although, his PHD was not the doctoral degree (Ph.D) we're accustomed to. 

Harun Yahya graduates folks such as ywc with a "PHD",  *P*ost *H*ole *D*igger. 

They're on sale and home and garden centers.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 25, 2013)

Boss said:


> You have not proven a thing I have said to be wrong.*(because I say so)* IF ANY OF YOU had done so, you would be posting it in every post, so that everyone could see it for themselves. You've not proven I am a "fraud"*(because I say so)* whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. These are your OPINIONS,*(because I say so)* and it's kind of important for you to know, that not everyone shares YOUR opinion.*(because I say so)* Because it happens to be an opinion possessed by your brain, doesn't mean it is an empirical and unassailable truth, and fact of life.*(because I say so)* I did present evidence,*(because I say so)* I did make my case,*(because I say so)* it's all in the OP argument,*(because I say so)* and anyone is free to go read it for themselves.*(because I say so)* You have yet to counter my argument,*(because I say so)* and in fact, continue to reaffirm the first point of the argument, that some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence*(because I say so)*.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > So case do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?
> ...



Why do you think gould recanted his own words ? You are not bright enough to understand the contradiction lol.

I could think of a few nicknames for you but then I would be stooping to your level and won't do it anymore. I just need to consider the source.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly workingWe see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages."-
> Darwin
> 
> Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend  though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just know that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.- Stephen jay Gould.



So explain these new traits. Where do they come from ? How do they become fixated in the population ? How is it that natural selection removes bad traits but leaves behind good traits ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.
> ...



So are you agreeing with gould ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Should I start quizzing you like daws to see if you can handle my so called Harun Yahya degree ?

I liked how he stumbled all over himself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This is for both you and daws.

Do you understand the strict limits of variation ?

 Selective breeding is done to get the most milk from cows, more sugar from beets, or any other characteristic when the strict limit is reached, what happens to that genetic line ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

MDiver said:


> Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists.  I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
> To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra.  Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
> I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one.  This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
> I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?"  His response was, "yes."  Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.



First of all, try to comprehend, the OP argument says nothing about a "deity" of any kind. God is used as a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually connect to. Next, think about the wind... it's there, you can feel it there, you can see the effects of it, but you can't see it. Of course, this is where Dorito pops in to interject how we can "see" wind with special machines we built to do that and stuff, but you get the point, right? Some things aren't visible to the naked eye, so is the case with spiritual nature, and it also can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. It's still there. We can't see a thought... again, Dorito will challenge that we can use a special machine to see at thought happening, but before we created a machine, we couldn't physically confirm thoughts existed. Who's to say, we won't one day have a machine that "sees" spiritual nature?

Prayers DO work, if they didn't, people wouldn't bother praying. Now you present an example comparing a prayer for a parking space to people who are starving to death. But your viewpoint is prejudiced by your humanism. Because you are a spiritual human being, you have compassion for other humans and living things, you don't want to see suffering, and it makes no sense to you how any "god" could allow such a thing to happen without answering their prayers. The thing is, if God intervened to right all injustices, and rid us from all suffering and anguish, would we have any concept of those things? If God eliminated all bad, how would we interpret good and bad? Good and less good? The spiritual nature doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't have compassion like spiritual humans, that's a human attribute we're given by the Creator, through our spiritual connection. Perhaps God is weighing on your heart, since you thought about these starving people, and expects you to do something to help? God gave you a conscience, compassion, the ability to see that people are suffering and the ability to do something about that. Instead, you choose to sit here and mock God, make fun of people who believe in God, and pretend that the starving people are God's responsibility, even though you don't believe God exists.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> the conspiracy spin redux..


I see.  So when the conversation turns to establishment "science" and how any researcher merely mentioning the idea of creation is defunded and marginalized... THAT's just "conspiracy spin redux."  Move along folks, nothing to see here but tinfoil-hat-wearing Flat Earthers...

However, when the conversation harkens back to how all the authors of the bible, spanning an entire millennia give or take, collaborated together and bullshitted their way through the whole thing to establish a system of control... well, that's just absolute "fact" ... not "conspiracy spin redux."  Correct?

It's as much a fact as Hollie's absurd, false claim that all things spiritual have been "disproven."

I see you and Hollie fancy yourselves brilliant intellectuals; you feed off of each other nicely.  So, why don't y'all just a get a room, and leave this discussion for the rest of us?  Those of us who are here for real, honest, meaningful debate and not here to just incessantly fire off insults thinly veiled with the obligatory sprinkling of pretentious, scholarly-sounding words.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 25, 2013)

And here it comes... "You insulted us too, so you're a hypocrite!"

Before you even try that tired, old crap.  I've read several pages of this stuff and I see what's going on here.  There is absolutely ZERO effort to debate the OP.  Instead there has been nothing but character assassination and y'all high-fiving each other after each insult.

When Hollie--on page one I think it was--said the existence of the spiritual has been "disproven," any chance of a rational discussion went out the window.  It's an entirely false statement and completely destroyed her credibility.  Since then all I've seen are insults coming from the two of you, and you both seem to ooze this sense that you are proud of yourselves and your superior intellect.  Well, all of that falls on deaf ears when the whole thing starts off with an irrational, illogical, false argument.


----------



## Boss (Jun 25, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.
> 
> You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?
> 
> ...



Your posting begins with two instances which I have bolded for emphasis.

 Man *need to find a reason* for the randomness of life. *Why* does that one die, and that one live?

WHY does man need to find a reason? Why does man care why? We see nothing else in nature being so inquisitive, so where did this come from? You are making the same mistake as Hollie, and presuming that we created spirituality to address this curiosity/fear attribute, but you've not demonstrated where this came from. You just proceed to build a case around this, without explaining it. When we use actual science and observe other living things, we don't find this attribute. Animals in the wild don't need to find reason, they don't contemplate why some die and others don't. Some will argue, well, we just have more advanced brain function, but that's not really true either, there is nothing in nature to support this. Other animals, particularly upper primates like chimps, have the same brain function as humans. If we saw evidence that chimps had tried to crudely practice some kind of spirituality, I may be able to accept that this attribute is naturally obtained, but we don't see that. Where did it come from? 

Is it that hard to believe, that humans have a special ability to recognize spiritual nature, where other animals don't? That this is where our inquisitive nature comes from, and ultimately, what has led to our achievements as a species? Of course, this is impossible to imagine if you have rejected spiritual nature and closed your mind to the possibility. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jun 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Bowie made a rational, though somewhat hyperbolic observation.  What followed is what we've come to expect.  Repugnant, one-liner insults generically aimed at the entire Christian family.  Hollie's response didn't even have a shred of relation to what she replied to.  It's as if Hollie just wanted to force-fit her pre-conceived one-liner into a conversation.  Obviously, daws was impressed and continued in likewise fashion.

Whatever happened to the good old unbelievers who would take the stage in public debate and offer up real, rational, well-thought-out counterpoints relative to the subject at hand?


----------



## hobelim (Jun 26, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you. 


It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

hobelim said:


> If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.
> 
> It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.



Wow, that would describe the disbelievers in this thread. 

The logical debate is found in the OP. It begins with defining parameters and terminology. Before you can even begin to have a debate, you logically have to establish what you are debating, as there are different interpretations of what the words mean, so this has to be first established before the debate happens. 

If you are unable to recognize spiritual nature, it disqualifies you from any further participation in the debate, because you lack the ability to comprehend the term "spiritual existence," it means nothing to you. If you don't understand the terms of the debate, how can you debate? I mean, it's no big deal, we are debating the existence of God, and you don't believe in God, so it shouldn't matter that you can't participate in the debate. But for some reason, this point doesn't seem to sink in, we're several thousand posts in, and still getting disbelievers wanting to debate what they are incapable of debating. 

The lack of ability to participate in the debate, has led to an insult-fest, bombarding the thread with superfluous nonsense, attacking Christians, attacking religion, mocking and ridiculing with a few snarky cartoons thrown in here and there for good measure. Very few people have been objectively able to even address the OP argument, and a whole lot of disbelieving crusaders are here, slapping each other on the back, acting as if they have defeated the arguments, and they are just here to rub it in.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2013)

"Is it that hard to believe, that humans have a special ability to recognize spiritual nature, where other animals don't? That this is where our inquisitive nature comes from, and ultimately, what has led to our achievements as a species? Of course, this is impossible to imagine if you have rejected spiritual nature and closed your mind to the possibility. But that doesn't mean it isn't true."

Whatever floats your boat, Boss. I respect your opinion, and  applaud your civility. but, for me, it is really very simple. I live in a random universe with no invisable spirituality, god, or creator. Animals do not anticipate death. It only becomes a recognizeable phenomiana when it it occurs, and then, only to the higher primates. Animals have no code of right or wrong, of truth or fiction. They live only for today. They do not know guilt, remorse, or dwell on phiisophical issues. Man has achieved a higher intelligence, which in no way means that he is wiser. In fact, I think that knowledge and wisdom are almost mutually exclusive. You have stated that your concept of spirituality is not necessarily dogmatic, or tied to a religion. I maintain that spirituality is every bit as valid as the Asian concept of reincarnation, which means that I reject it pretty much outright.

 I think, therefore I am. When I cease to think, I am not. End of story.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 26, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> And here it comes... "You insulted us too, so you're a hypocrite!"
> 
> Before you even try that tired, old crap.  I've read several pages of this stuff and I see what's going on here.  There is absolutely ZERO effort to debate the OP.  Instead there has been nothing but character assassination and y'all high-fiving each other after each insult.
> 
> When Hollie--on page one I think it was--said the existence of the spiritual has been "disproven," any chance of a rational discussion went out the window.  It's an entirely false statement and completely destroyed her credibility.  Since then all I've seen are insults coming from the two of you, and you both seem to ooze this sense that you are proud of yourselves and your superior intellect.  Well, all of that falls on deaf ears when the whole thing starts off with an irrational, illogical, false argument.



There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.



The OP is full of evidence. You have the inability to recognize spiritual nature, and you can't envision any incarnation of god that isn't a deity or religious. There are no semantics games, there are semantics that need to be clearly understood and defined before any debate can happen. You can't even comprehend the argument, because of your shallow mind that is closed to anything other than your shallow-minded preconceptions of "invisible people in da sky" ...that's the maturity level we're dealing with here. You should just continue your boycott of this thread, before someone comes and embarasses you again.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> > Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists.  I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
> ...



Just more of the unsupported claims to gawds that Boss rattles on with. 

Sorry, Boss but appeals to &#8220;prayers do work&#8221; is a fool&#8217;s errand, because it relies completely on supernatural interventions-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Belief in &#8220;prayer &#8221; is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

Here&#8217;s a simple test for &#8220;prayer&#8221;:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any appeals for "miraculous" cures. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer or hoping for &#8220;miracle cures&#8221; they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "the gods suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > And here it comes... "You insulted us too, so you're a hypocrite!"
> ...



lol, atheists say that about EVERY argument that supports a belief in God, from the classic five arguments for God from antiquity to the modern versions of same and newer ones today.

You don't want to debate, so you all simply dismiss everything out of hand.

And it doesn't take long for everyone to see what you are as you engage in this 'discussion'.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MDiver said:
> ...



And since when does all knowledge have to have a scientific basis?

You are a fool.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "Is it that hard to believe, that humans have a special ability to recognize spiritual nature, where other animals don't? That this is where our inquisitive nature comes from, and ultimately, what has led to our achievements as a species? Of course, this is impossible to imagine if you have rejected spiritual nature and closed your mind to the possibility. But that doesn't mean it isn't true."
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, Boss. I respect your opinion, and  applaud your civility. but, for me, it is really very simple. I live in a random universe with no invisable spirituality, god, or creator. Animals do not anticipate death. It only becomes a recognizeable phenomiana when it it occurs, and then, only to the higher primates. Animals have no code of right or wrong, of truth or fiction. They live only for today. They do not know guilt, remorse, or dwell on phiisophical issues. Man has achieved a higher intelligence, which in no way means that he is wiser..


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



lol, when are you libtards going to grow up and start accepting responsibility for what YOU do?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No, its called networking and 'pursuing mutual interests'.

And even if we were talking conspiracy, what you think the Mafia isn't a conspiracy? The KGB? Al Qaeda' various terrorism efforts? Price fixing that is going on in various industries?

Conspiracies happen all the time, even if libtards like you don't see them for what they are, just like you cant see God.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.
> ...



Try and be honest, Boss. It's not a conspiracy that many people have identified your claims to spirit worlds and gawds as silly, pointless and utterly absent meaningful proof. Your requirement that we must accept your "because I say so" demands in order to believe your claims may work with a "less than discerning" audience, Just don't expect that nonsense to be accepted by those who don't share your particular, partisan religious beliefs.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



In that case, make an unscientific, irrational argument for your gawds. 

Oh, wait. That's all you can offer. 

It seems you are the fool.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Did you realize that the entirety of your every post is cliche'?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason from the evidence of reality.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason out the evidence from reality.



When your evidence is nothing more than falsified "quotes", appeals to supernaturalism and creationist nonsense, you should first make an effort to understand what a defendable argument consists of.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason out the evidence from reality.
> ...



Wrong hollie, the last question I asked you is simple and this is important for anyone to know, it will help in your decision.

This question is a known fact and can't be spun. But evolutionist do spin and I will tell you how they spin just attempt an answer. It is a little more effective learning in this fashion as you go.

If you don't know the answer don't worry I will answer it and we can go from there.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

The same thing happens to both plant and animals.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya will leave you with nothing but falsified "quotes".

Your real contention is anyone pointing out that the various bibles are fallible and contain gross errors. Since it is you insisting that the bibles are the words of the Gods, and are not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Fundies understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly creationist arguments that are lies and false "qoutes" intended only to vilify science. The really laughable part of creationist appesls to gawds is that they always  require the fundie to be ignorant of their bibles and science to believe them.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The answer has nothing to do with the bible this is scientific fact,and it has gone through the scientific method.

Here is the answer. once the limit of variation is met or exceeded,that genetic line becomes sterile and dies out. Evolutionist don't want you to know there are limits to variations.

This has been confirmed by biologists,ranchers,farmers,and any kind of genetic breeder.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

This was confirmed through selective breeding I don't think we need to discuss the chance of being able to go beyond these limits in any other sort of breeding.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course. There are more players in the global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionist than just scientists. You have identified other co-conspirators. 

The conspiracy has taken on global proportions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Now try this on for size.

Bacteria in just every couple of hours a new generation is born. In flies every 9 days a new generation is born. With the higher mutation rate and the countless generations of both why do they not evolve ?

In Humans about every 20 years a new generation is born. Yet humans being far more complex in a very few generations compared to bacteria and flies they were able to evolve from their supposed nearest ancestor.

Can you see the problem with the theory ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I can see the problems caused by christian fundamentalism.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.



And Harun Yahya knows his facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Why are their limits to genetic variation Hollie ? I already gave you the answer.

You need faith to believe this theory and even go against scientific evidence to think this theory is even viable. Now if you want to believe in a fairytale just believe this theory.

We have not even discussed origins of life. Atheistic evolution and naturalism is dead on arrival unless you are a person of faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.

Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.
> 
> Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.



Trust me. I don't trust you. 

I have seen your "evidence" and I have spent more than a minor amount of time researching your "evidence". It is invariably cut and pasted from fundamentalist Christian websites, ICR and other such charlatans, or Harun Yahya. 

It's been explained to you more times than I can count: Christian creationism is smoke and mirrors for fundamentalist christianity. It is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.
> ...



Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.



Have you considered that syntax such as yours - appropriate only for a 10 year old - suggests that your "science" descriptions are less than credible? 

These "known facts" are suspiciously absent a source. Let me guess, the ICR, AIG?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's exactly true.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 

This is why fundamentalist christianity, behind the smokescreen of ID, has repeatedly been denied representation in the public school system.


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MDiver said:
> ...



Well, we've already covered this, several pages back, amidst the mounds of religious arguing you keep baiting YWC into. Nothing about spirituality is supernatural. For something to qualify as "supernatural" it has to be outside of nature, and spirituality has been part of human nature for as long as humans have existed. Also, I can find nothing in the Science book that says certain things are off limits to science. In fact, I find an awful lot of things in the old History book, to indicate Science has often tackled what was previously thought to be supernatural. (Ball lightning, for example.)  



> Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Belief in prayer  is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.



Again, ball lightning... they aren't sure what's happening there. The phenomenon happens, people report it and see it happen, but it has been problematic to test repeatedly in a lab environment. Much of what science has speculated about ball lightning, is faith. Science thinks it knows, but nothing is conclusive. The same can be said for cross-genus evolution. There is no repeatable test to prove this theory, it has never been reproduced in a lab by any science. There are transitional fossils which science uses to make the claim, but it's still a theory largely based on faith. Are ball lightning and cross-genus speciation "supernatural" phenomenon? You can't test and repeat, or describe the process by which they operate, so they must be, according to you. How about black holes, anti-matter, dark energy? Where has science tested and repeated those phenomenon? Are they "supernatural" or do you have faith that science will one day find an answer? How about this "silly" theory of a contracting universe? That hasn't been tested or demonstrated, the universe isn't contracting and never has, as far as the evidence shows. Again, this is a "faith-based" speculation. Yet, it was presented earlier as if it were some proven scientific discovery. 




> Heres a simple test for prayer:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any appeals for "miraculous" cures. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer or hoping for miracle cures they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "the gods suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.



You can't test prayer. It's not physical nature. Prayer relies on the prayer's faith and spiritual connection, and it doesn't always work as we 'pray' it will. Still, you raise this example because you have physical awareness that people have reported miraculous healings through prayer. These accounts are too numerous to detail here, this has been happening for ages. No physical explanations for the healings, the doctors are miffed, can't explain what happened. Your first reaction is to claim misdiagnosis, but the x-rays are there, they show a tumor exists, then the tumor is gone. Supernatural phenomenon? Or perhaps, spiritual nature intervened to direct physical nature? Or maybe ball lightning is playing tricks on the x-ray equipment? In any event, you can't physically explain it, and the people who were on their knees praying, can certainly explain it.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


and the delusional accusations just keep coming ..gould did and has not recanted anything .

volution as Fact and Theory

by Stephen Jay Gould



irtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of sciencethat is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theorynatural selectionto explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologist questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly workingWe see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages."-
> ...


asked and answered millions of times on the creationists thread. 
either you have a very bad memory or this rule applies : doing or saying the same thing over and over and expecting a difference result is the very definition of insanity.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the conspiracy spin redux..
> ...


take things out of context much?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bump


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.
> ...


why did I know you'd say that?
hobelim hit the nail on the head ..
somewhere along the line the rules of debate have been altered by you guys to make it appear that your professed belief is somehow evidence of something other than  belief. 
nothing you've presented comes close to even the loosest standard of evidence.
 as to the "attacks" here's an axiom for you "if your gonna play with the big kids don't whine if you get hurt."


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason from the evidence of reality.


all the evidence from reality refutes your assumed. FANTASY


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


lol!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.


 when someone uses the term know fact they are most often referring to misunderstood science or just plain old fashioned bullshit 
in this instance it's both.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

somebody's stacking it high and deep and it's not hollie!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That is not the comment I disagreed with hollie over. Believe as you wish and I guess some have to learn the hard way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss it is all yours.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes it is you infer that that creationism is real science it is not.


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Rules of debate haven't been altered. I stated in the OP, that we have to exclude debaters who don't recognize spiritual nature, because you have no concept of the terminology used in the debate. This is one of the reasons you can't see the evidence, which I very clearly presented in the OP. Persistent behavioral attributes, are evidence. First-hand testimonials from billions of people, are evidence. The correlation between human spirituality and advancement of the species, is evidence. You can't refute it, so you reject it, dismiss it, and ignore it. When that doesn't work, you personally attack and insult, and try to derail the thread topic by changing the debate. 

And to set the record straight, I am in no way "whining" about anything. I am pointing out your bankruptcy of ideas and revealing the tactic you've chosen to use, instead of engaging the topic. I don't do this to complain, but to illustrate to others how devoid of an argument you really are. Please don't flatter yourself into thinking your petty insults have hurt my feelings, I assure you, I have been insulted in much worse ways. It doesn't bother me a bit,  it confirms your desperation and patheticness.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


the above statement is erroneous.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Great. Now the fundie is using not so vague references to what awaits in some afterlife for those who don't believe as he does.  

Take your threats elsewhere. Your scare tactics wherein you try to bludgeon people with your angry gawds is tiresome. 

Do you think your gawds want or need a wannabe enforcer of dogma?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you have an example ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Hollie you're suffering from paranoia.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


reading comprehension trouble acting up again?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You've made these pompous, assinine threats before. 

Don't feel a need to threaten others on behalf of your gawds


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


next he'll say "the walls are closing in."


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Why don't you help us out and offer an example of your accusation.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it not an accusation it's statement of fact ...no further example is needed..
btw when you learn the difference between the two. get back to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I find that people that think and react like you and hollie are suffering from paranoia and living in fear.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


as always you'd be wrong and projecting.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Then provide the facts so it is not reduced to an unsubstantiated accusation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It is an opinion.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


all the facts are there ...still haven't  learned the difference ...why am I not surprised .


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, it's not a statement of fact, it is a statement of your opinion. It is baseless.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


based on a bias, not fact .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Hmm, if all the facts are there it should be easy to point them out.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, observation.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


hahahahaha! of course you'd say that. defending bullshit is something you do well!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


based on that same bias and not objectivity or analytical scrutiny


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no need they're obvious..need someone to hold your hand ?


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

I guess we need AVG-JOE to close the thread again and clean up the YahYah poop?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I am very analytical and have had plenty of experience with your post writing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You don't need to ever give support of your biased and baseless accusations.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no you believe you are . the facts provided by you tell a different story.
also your bias colors your  experience  invalidating it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

> no need they're obvious..need someone to hold your hand ?



Why don't you go fuck yourself, moron? You popped off your smart ass mouth and got called out on it, now you want to fire off one-liners all day, and fill the thread up with this silly bullshit. You don't give a shit, it's just more posts for people to have to wade through, to get to the thread topic. You're filibustering, plain and simple, because you lack the intellectual wattage to meet the challenge. Get the fuck out of my thread if you're not going to discuss the topic, or I will take this to the mods. I'm done with your demagoguing bullshit here.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


since they're neither and boss's post contains all the relevant facts no extra support is needed.
btw your statement is a false assumption.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> > no need they're obvious..need someone to hold your hand ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you go fuck yourself, moron? You popped off your smart ass mouth and got called out on it, now you want to fire off one-liners all day, and fill the thread up with this silly bullshit. You don't give a shit, it's just more posts for people to have to wade through, to get to the thread topic. You're filibustering, plain and simple, because you lack the intellectual wattage to meet the challenge. Get the fuck out of my thread if you're not going to discuss the topic, or I will take this to the mods. I'm done with your demagoguing bullshit here.


another erroneous statement.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 26, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.
> ...


 


 Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


I agree 100% 
subjective experience is not evidence 
belief only proves belief it is not evidence of the thing believed in.
the major problem with this thread from the start has been the extremely bigoted assumption by the op that if you did not accept what he termed" spiritual evidence" you didn't have the intellectual chops to understand or participate in the thread..
it's not a tough concept..
it is fact that there is some sort of energy that we can sense but not see, it does have an effect on our thinking.
other than that ,what is is or if it's an intelligence different or greater than ours or created existence, is all speculation.  
the cocksureness of the author does more harm than good to the pov he's presenting.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Among numerous other logical fallacies being employed throughout this thread by Boss, he is begging the question when he attempts to use "spiritual evidence", which is a form of circular logic. When I first mentioned this, he goes "begging what question?!!" Obviously ignorant to common logical fallacies, he has no problem in making them, and defending them without realizing what and where they are. His conclusion (the spiritual's existence) is included in his premise (spiritual evidence), when he says, "you must be able to see spiritual evidence in order to believe in the spiritual." This is circular because in order to see spiritual evidence, you must believe in the spiritual, which is his conclusion. This is what he doesn't seem to understand. Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual." It is tautological, and as such, says nothing. Yet, Boss is a charlatan and a sophist who tries to pass off this non-argument as something of substance when it has none. It is intellectual dishonesty and quackery at its finest. Any philosophy professor or logician, or even a rational theologian who does believe in a spiritual realm, would look at this and laugh their asses off.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 26, 2013)

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."
> 
> I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?



I'll drink to that. 

Another good post, btw.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."
> ...



Thank you


----------



## daws101 (Jun 26, 2013)

waiting for a wall of text reply...


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> waiting for a wall of text reply...






> *Boss: *
> 
> ... You're filibustering, plain and simple ....




he already did ....


----------



## Boss (Jun 27, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.



Human belief IS evidence when 95% of humans through all of human history believe something, and believe it profoundly. It may be circumstantial, but that isn't the only evidence presented, it's just a part of the evidence. There is physical evidence from science and nature, no other living things practice spirituality. So it can't be an "evolved" attribute. The explanations (excuses) you've presented for why it exists, all contradict nature and science discovery. Other upper primates have the same brain function and structure, so it's not that, unless you have evidence of chimps attending Sunday School. 

Oh, an the purpose of the thread is not to convince you. Please try and let that soak in, because I don't want you to be disillusioned by what I have presented. I merely laid out the case for definitive proof of god's existence. You are free to agree or disagree, and you obviously disagree.... haven't refuted my argument, but that's okay, you can still disagree.



newpolitics said:


> Among numerous other logical fallacies being employed throughout this thread by Boss, he is begging the question when he attempts to use "spiritual evidence", which is a form of circular logic. When I first mentioned this, he goes "begging what question?!!" Obviously ignorant to common logical fallacies, he has no problem in making them, and defending them without realizing what and where they are. His conclusion (the spiritual's existence) is included in his premise (spiritual evidence), when he says, "you must be able to see spiritual evidence in order to believe in the spiritual." This is circular because in order to see spiritual evidence, you must believe in the spiritual, which is his conclusion. This is what he doesn't seem to understand. Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual." It is tautological, and as such, says nothing. Yet, Boss is a charlatan and a sophist who tries to pass off this non-argument as something of substance when it has none. It is intellectual dishonesty and quackery at its finest. Any philosophy professor or logician, or even a rational theologian who does believe in a spiritual realm, would look at this and laugh their asses off.



Usually, when someone says "begs the question..." it is followed by the question that is begged. That's why I asked you what question, you didn't say, you left the sentence incomplete, and it made no logical sense to me. 

It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct? In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual. Well, the same rule applies logically to spiritual nature, it can't rely on physical evidence. In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence. This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science. 



newpolitics said:


> Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."
> 
> I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?



Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature. 

*I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything.*

Again, you seem to be under the impression this thread is about "convincing" people. No, you're not ever going to convince me, the spiritual nature I connect with daily, and have been connecting with for more than 40 years, is not real. You would be more successful trying to convince me my mother doesn't really exist. So if your hope was, your pathetic excuses and debunked reasoning, was going to "convince" me, you were wrong, and I agree, you should move on from this thread. In fact, I will request that you not respond to this post, or any more here. Just find some other thread to interject your wisdom in, and leave this one for the people who objectively want to tackle the OP argument.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 27, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.
> ...


see what did I tell you !


----------



## Boss (Jun 28, 2013)

> see what did I tell you !



Wow daws... you stick around long enough, you'll finally get something right!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Boss said:


> > see what did I tell you !
> 
> 
> 
> Wow daws... you stick around long enough, you'll finally get something right!


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 28, 2013)

> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. *This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.* You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.
> ...




*This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.*


the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....

the characteristic is proven world wide since mans existence through Architecture by all cultures unrelated and on all continents, as temples for a similar purpose ... that is physically factual.

the proof of the OP can not simply be ignored as illusory ...


its failure is a distinction of mankind exclusive from the rest of Nature.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 28, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> *This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.*
> 
> 
> the OP is not based on belief but on observations of a defining characteristic it claims is exclusionary to humans, that is proof of ....
> ...




Sure it can.


I have a dog who barks like his life depends on it whenever the noisy scary monster that appears every week to pick up the trash shows up. Every time the garbage truck leaves he prances around like he just saved everybody's life. I'm sure that in his little head he is convinced about the power of barking and uses it every time he is faced with similar life threatening situations by things he cannot understand about why those monsters appear or why they leave.

Now that dog may be convinced that he is privy to spiritual powers and the historical record of dogs barking is proof of spiritual realities,  but the truth is that his little mind cannot conceive of or comprehend the reality of waste disposal and that his barking has absolutely no effect one way or the other on the garbage truck.

And even if you spent an entire day teaching him about trash removal and even showed him a receipt he would only lick his balls and then bark at the very next noise.


----------



## Boss (Jun 29, 2013)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > *This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. ... You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.*
> ...



Barking is vocalization, and LOTS of animals do it. They don't believe they are connecting to spiritual nature, in your example, the dog was issuing a warning bark. When you observe dogs building temples to worship God for giving them the ability bark, give me a holler. Until then, you don't have much of a theory here. 

Now it's interesting to note, dogs bark a lot out of insecurity... so why didn't dogs invent some imaginary playmate to console themselves, like humans supposedly did with god? That's the question you need to answer. Because we don't see this happening in nature around us. Barking isn't spiritually worshiping.


----------



## Boss (Jun 29, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. *This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.* You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.
> ...



I did make the point of humans being intrinsically spiritual throughout their history, and this is certainly evidenced by the architecture. 

I never claimed spiritual nature was exclusionary to humans, only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality. Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique. This is important to note because it can't be explained by natural selection. This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man. We don't see evidence of other upper primates trying to mimic the behavior, it's non-existent outside of humans. The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct?


What exactly is spiritual evidence. Is it anyone who has claimed to see Devils or Demons. Is it merely a belief in the supernatural or must it be of religious supernatural? When you say rely, rely on it for what?



> In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual.


Is spirutal thought, which I prefer to call it based on the individual. Two people may believe in the same thing but their perception of it may be radically different. 



> Well, the same rule applies logically to spiritual nature, it can't rely on physical evidence.


What exactly is spiritual nature? Is that some sort of way to say how people made stuff up because they couldn't explain or understand how it worked? Relating to nature and the natural world of course.



> In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence.


You've lost me.



> This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature.


Are fairies and unicorns apart of spiritual nature? Perhaps Bigfoot and Nessie?



> It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.


Or maybe, just maybe spiritual entities do not exist.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Bullshit, you damned liar.

It is at least evidence of that belief if nothing else.

If it is evidence of spiritualism or anything else is up to the person viewing said evidence.

IS it scientific? Fuck no, but not all evidence is scientific, dullard.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."
> 
> I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?



Lol, you mock what he is saying and then use that as proof he cant say anything of value?

roflmao.

You secularists have lost the debate a long time ago, but you persist in back slapping each other for morale's sake, I suppose.

Your bullshit is not selling. Get a fucking life.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...





sure it is. It is the canine version of a fear based reaction to what they cannot understand triggered by their instincts to protect the pack from danger.. exactly like the ineffective reaction to what people  fear that you call spiritual evidence..

Sacrificing virgins, witch hunts, lighting candles, sacrificing animals, building big temples with which to honor their gods,... prayer  is all  barking. Whenever something fearful happens, an illness, plague famine, war, drought, bad weather,  whatever, people bark until its over and the danger has passed and then become convinced that barking, or sacrificing virgins, lighting candles, etc.,  has had an effect, so they teach their children to bark whenever a human version of a scary monster rears it scary head even though it has absolutely no effect on whatever it is they fear one way or the other..


----------



## Boss (Jun 29, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct?
> ...



Do we really need to be so obtuse we pretend to not understand basic English? Rely on it to make an informed evaluation of the question. 



> > In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual.
> 
> 
> Is spirutal thought, which I prefer to call it based on the individual. Two people may believe in the same thing but their perception of it may be radically different.



It's a connection to spiritual nature, and humans are not completely able to comprehend and understand spiritual nature. Because of our inability to fully understand it, we tend to create beliefs around it, which may or may not have basis or legitimacy. Regardless, spiritual nature for sake of this conversation, has been defined universally, as the spiritual power greater than self that humans worship. 

If your point is, we can't rely on spiritual evidence because people have differing perceptions on what is spiritual, then I would argue that people also have differing perspectives on physical evidence as well. Science is comprised of theories and laws which people often have radically different perceptions on. As a result, sometimes theories and laws are disputed or refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity, for instance, was superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Quantum Physics even challenges Einstein's theory. 



> What exactly is spiritual nature? Is that some sort of way to say how people made stuff up because they couldn't explain or understand how it worked? Relating to nature and the natural world of course.



We've covered this earlier, the speculation that humans created spirituality as a placebo for knowledge is incorrect. If it were 'natural' for us to make stuff up whenever we couldn't explain things, humans would have never advanced as a species. We see no indication in nature, that anything else out there, makes up imaginary playmates to explain what isn't known or to console death. Humans strive for knowledge and understanding, and you don't get there by making up imaginary gods to explain things. So this idea is contrary to what we know about humans, and nature in general. It also contradicts Darwin, because the humans who didn't make stuff up to explain the unknown, would have overcome the weaker selection of the species who did, and it wouldn't be our most defining attribute.



> *"In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence."*You've lost me.



Really? It's a simple concept. You comprehend that we have to evaluate physical nature with physical evidence, we call it Science. Spiritual nature isn't physical nature, so Science isn't adequate to evaluate it. 



> > This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> Are fairies and unicorns apart of spiritual nature? Perhaps Bigfoot and Nessie?



Now you are attempting to ridicule, because you want to diminish my viewpoint. What this says about your counter-argument is, it's weak. You rely on faith in disbelief. You've rejected spiritual nature, and in order to support your philosophy, you've chosen to ridicule and mock anything which challenges it. 

The things you mentioned are all products of human imagination. Spirituality does manifest things created by human imagination, because humans don't fully understand spiritual nature. This is how "religion" came to be. Regardless of the validity of what humans may imagine, it has nothing to do with whether spiritual nature exists. 



> > It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.
> 
> 
> Or maybe, just maybe spiritual entities do not exist.


[/QUOTE]

Maybe they don't? Maybe what we understand as "spiritual nature" is actually explainable through physical science and physical nature? Is there the least possibility in your mind, that humans don't yet know everything? Humans DO connect to something, they've been doing it for all their existence, and it's their most defining attribute. At this time, there is no physical explanation for this, so we call it spiritual nature. Once was a time, humans believed "rain" was a product of spiritual nature, it happened because the gods were pleased or whatever.... then science comes along and explains HOW rain happens, so this suddenly isn't a spiritual phenomenon anymore, it becomes physically explainable and a physical phenomenon. Now, we have explained HOW the evaporation process works, what happens in clouds, how density of moisture accumulates and becomes to heavy to be suspended, then falls back to the surface as rain... but have we explained WHY the elements behaved as they did? No, we determined because we could explain HOW it happened, that it didn't matter WHY. Such is the case for much of science, as it has explained away things that were previously considered spiritual nature.


----------



## Boss (Jun 29, 2013)

hobelim said:


> sure it is. It is the canine version of a fear based reaction to what they cannot understand triggered by their instincts to protect the pack from danger.. exactly like the ineffective reaction to what people  fear that you call spiritual evidence..
> 
> Sacrificing virgins, witch hunts, lighting candles, sacrificing animals, building big temples with which to honor their gods,... prayer  is all  barking. Whenever something fearful happens, an illness, plague famine, war, drought, bad weather,  whatever, people bark until its over and the danger has passed and then become convinced that barking, or sacrificing virgins, lighting candles, etc.,  has had an effect, so they teach their children to bark whenever a human version of a scary monster rears it scary head even though it has absolutely no effect on whatever it is they fear one way or the other..



You are completely wrong, the attribute of barking is not related in any way to human spiritual connection. Barking is 'vocalization' and is more akin to what you are doing here, than human spiritual connection. Dogs bark for a variety of social reasons, but they never bark to console themselves about what happens after they die or tricks they haven't mastered yet. When faced with challenges of adversity, dogs don't bark to gain inner strength to persevere. Has your dog ever barked at the trash man before he arrived? If they truly believed in the power of barking, wouldn't they demonstrate this in such a way? Nope, dogs don't do preemptive barking, it's a completely reactionary trait. 

It's interesting to note, it is believed dogs bark so much because of domestication. This has allowed them to more freely use vocalization, where other animals in the wild, may rarely use such vocalization. Wolves, for instance, almost never bark, and when they do, it's only as a defense mechanism to protect or alert the pack. So even if you think you have a point, that dogs worship the Barking God, or whatever, we see in nature, this isn't supportable. In the wild, their boisterous behavior would have not been beneficial to the species, and they would have been rendered extinct by other animals who weren't compelled to the behavior. Again, an "excuse" has been offered up to "explain" human spirituality, and it fails the test of nature and logic, and actually refutes Darwinism.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 29, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



 How about you save your personal attacks for when you actually have an point. As it is, I could care less that you THINK I'm a liar. The reality is that I don't buy into your bullshit god that has NO FUCKING EVIDENCE OR LOGIC. I'm not the one who feels the need to prove something to everyone, unlike you massively insecure theists and deists who need to ram your gods down everyones throat, and anyone who doesn't accept this line of bullshit you call names, like a child would do. You're a fucking joke.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 29, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."
> ...



You're a fucking idiot dude.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.
> ...



Let me get this straight: Your argument doesn't pertain to objective reality, and you are making an argument while not trying to convince anyone of anything? You do realize this is a debate forum? And that a debate is defined as a forum where there exists an exchange of opposing arguments? And that arguments are defined as an attempt at persuading someone of something?  Therefore, you can't be arguing for proof of god, while not trying to convince someone of something. This is self-contradictory, yet again with you! It does me no good to point this out to you, because you will simply ignore this. So, in conclusion, you are either lying about your intentions, or are ignorant as to what an argument actually is. 

Go back to school. You have forgotten what words mean. 

You fail to counter any of my refutations using logic, instead you simply restate your tired talking points.  Apparently you don't know how to use google to look up concepts like "Begging the question" when I have tried twice now to actually explain to you what it means. You aren't trying at all, and so why should anyone else? Then you mock others when they can't grasp your silly notions about what consitututes evidence. You simply stick to your talking points and keep on restating them, and when people get tired of this, you claim victory along with your idiot friends like SJ. There is no point in any of us being here to argue with you, since as I said, this is only about what is in your mind, not in objective reality. One last thing, I never said I was trying to convince you that this spiritual realm doesn't exist. I don't care what you believe, at all. Knock yourself out. I am trying to convince that your premises don't grant your conclusions, because of your numerous logical fallacies. Considering this is a debate forum, which involves arguments which are ALL based on logic, this is all I need to do, and nothing more. I and many others have done this, but you just turn your blinders on and forge ahead like a true idiot. You want to simply believe that your argument is sound and valid, and won't take any hints to the contrary. Take a logic course, for fucks sake. 

THERE IS NO POINT TO THIS THREAD. I am going to unsubscribe from receiving any more notification from it. Good to luck to anyone that continues with this dross. Having gone back on my word of abstinence from this thread three times now, because I can't let Boss get away with these crimes of logic, I still think we ought to let this thread die. It's for the good of our sanity and the good of the world. 

-unsubscribed-


----------



## Boss (Jun 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Let me get this straight: Your argument doesn't pertain to objective reality, and you are making an argument while not trying to convince anyone of anything? You do realize this is a debate forum, and that a debate is an exchange of opposing arguments, and that arguments are defined as an attempt at persuading someone of something?
> 
> Go back to school. You have forgotten what words mean.



No, my argument does pertain to the reality of spiritual nature, and you can't imagine spiritual nature, therefore, conclude it is not part of objective reality. Spirituality, if nothing else, proves that it IS part of objective reality, whether you admit it or not. 

This is not a debate forum, this is a message board. People can post whatever they please here, and sometimes a debate happens as a result. I welcome any debate on the argument presented in the OP, but the argument begins by establishing definitions and parameters of what is debated. You failed to meet those parameters, so you have no basis on which you can debate the argument. You have tried to debunk an argument that you don't comprehend and don't have the capacity to understand, and this is a fool's errand. 



> You fail to counter any of my refutations using logic, instead you simply restate your tired talking points.  Apparently you don't know how to use google to look up concepts like "Begging the question" when I have tried twice now to actually explain to you what it means.



Everything you've posted has been refuted with science, nature and observation. You've proven or established NO point. You continue to cling to theories which defy nature, science, and even Darwinism. 

I know what "begs the question" means, and it is generally followed in conversation by a question that is being begged. *The chick came from egg, but the egg comes from chicken... this begs the question, which came first?* You never completed your sentence, so I have no way as a reader, to know what question you are claiming is being begged. If you are going with English as your choice of how to communicate, you should learn to use it properly. I can't read your thoughts. 



> You aren't trying at all, and so why should anyone else? Then you mock others when they can't grasp your silly notions about what consitututes evidence. You simply stick to your talking points and keep on restating them, and when people get tired of this, you claim victory along with your idiot friends like SJ. There is no point in any of us being here to argue with you, since as I said, this is only about what is in your mind, not in objective reality. One last thing, I never said I was trying to convince you that this spiritual realm doesn't exist. I don't care what you believe, at all. Knock yourself out. I am trying to convince that your premises don't grant your conclusions, because of your numerous logical fallacies. Considering this is a debate forum, which involves arguments which are ALL based on logic, this is all I need to do, and nothing more. I and many others have done this, but you just turn your blinders on and forge ahead like a true idiot. You want to simply believe that your argument is sound and valid, and won't take any hints to the contrary. Take a logic course, for fucks sake.



I logically observed in the opening of the OP that some people disagree with my argument and opinion, I don't know how else I could have made that clearer. As for the argumentative points, you've not refuted those with science, nature or logic, you've presented things that contradict all of them. Largely due to the fact, you don't comprehend spiritual nature, which I warned you about in the OP... you're in a debate that is over your head, you don't have the capacity to comprehend "spiritual existence" the term is an oxymoron to you. You and others have continued to try and argue without the ability to reason spiritual nature, and you will continue to do so, because you must defend your own disbeliefs, it has become your personal replacement for spirituality.



> THERE IS NO POINT TO THIS THREAD. I am going to unsubscribe from receiving any more notification from it. Good to luck to anyone that continues with this dross. Having gone back on my word of abstinence from this thread three times now because I can't let Boss get away with these crimes of logic, I still think we ought to let this thread die. It's for the good of our sanity. I'm just looking out for the world.
> 
> -unsubscribed-



GOOD! You promised numerous pages ago, that you were done here and wouldn't return. I guess a dog returns to his vomit, eh? In any event, I think this thread will likely continue on, because I refuse to allow people to lie about having refuted the OP argument. You can keep trying, do like daws and flood the thread with nonsense so no one can converse, or Hollie, and attempt to derail the conversation to a religious bashing... but I will still be here to clarify that you haven't refuted my OP argument.


----------



## numan (Jun 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an _argumentum ad populum_, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds.


I certainly agree with you. The number of people who are convinced of something can never prove that what they believe is true. That requires additional evidence.

Indeed, the popularity of a belief is often an indication of the falseness of the belief -- especially when the belief seems so obvious that no one ever bothers to question it seriously.

It is obvious that the Earth does not move. It is obvious that the Sun moves from east to west. It is obvious that living species do not change from generation to generation. It is obvious that light objects fall more slowly than heavy ones, and that a moving object will always slow down and stop unless it continues to be pushed. All these views have _seemed_ obvious to most of the humans who have ever lived -- and every single one of them is wrong!

It may almost -- _almost__!_ -- be said that denying anything that is completely and utterly obvious is guaranteed to produce a fundamental advance in thought and science!!

I will agree with Boss to this extent -- human being have a strong propensity to being afflicted by religious delusion. I certainly do not regard this mental disease as being something positive, as Boss does.

Rather than deriving from a subtle perception of a fundamental reality of Existence, I see it as deriving from the instability of our large, complicated brains, which allows our easily confused minds to slip into self-reinforcing delusions, delusions which simpler organisms apparently do not suffer.

Of course, fear of the world around us, and our inability to think rationally about what we experience, are also very important, and all but universal to the incoherent minds of hominid apes. 
.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 29, 2013)

Here Boss, since you are too stubborn or lazy to type "begging the question" into google, it appears I have to do it for you. *You are begging the question with "spiritual evidence." *



> What is "Begging the Question?"
> 
> *"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.*
> 
> ...



Beg The Question // Get it right.



> Alias:
> Circular Argument
> Circulus in Probando
> Petitio Principii
> ...





> Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning. Were it not begging the question, the missing premise would render the argument viciously circular, and while never persuasive, arguments of the form "A therefore A" are logically valid[1][2][3] because asserting the premise while denying the self-same conclusion is a direct contradiction. In addition "A therefore A" is an extension of the Law of Identity. In general, validity only guarantees the conclusion must follow given the truth of the premises. Absent that, a valid argument proves nothing: the conclusion may or may not follow from faulty premises&#8212;although in this particular example, it's self-evident that the conclusion is false if and only if the premise is false (see logical equivalence and logical equality).
> You betrayed your ignorance with respect to logic long ago when you wrote the OP, but I'm hoping this might helpful you out of the epistemic cocoon you are in.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question



Adios.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sure it is. It is the canine version of a fear based reaction to what they cannot understand triggered by their instincts to protect the pack from danger.. exactly like the ineffective reaction to what people  fear that you call spiritual evidence..
> ...





yeah yeah yeah, tell me all that crap after the next national day of barking.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 29, 2013)

Boss said:


> Do we really need to be so obtuse we pretend to not understand basic English? Rely on it to make an informed evaluation of the question.


I understand english just fine but your term spuiritual evidence does not make sense as you cannot provide evidence of anything spiritual.


> It's a connection to spiritual nature, and humans are not completely able to comprehend and understand spiritual nature.


You are contradicting yourself. You cannot comprehend a subject that you say Humans cannot comprehend.



> Because of our inability to fully understand it, we tend to create beliefs around it, which may or may not have basis or legitimacy. Regardless, spiritual nature for sake of this conversation, has been defined universally, as the spiritual power greater than self that humans worship.


 But this could also be drug induced halucinations, chemical inbalances in the brain, powers of suggestion, explanations for unexplanetory events and outright lies.



> If your point is, we can't rely on spiritual evidence because people have differing perceptions on what is spiritual, then I would argue that people also have differing perspectives on physical evidence as well.


The first point is two people may claim to have seen the same spirit but when they describe this spirit the details are vastly different. As for your second point that is not true. Two people see the same object like a frog their descriptions are going to be relatively the same.


> Science is comprised of theories and laws which people often have radically different perceptions on.


I would say these perceptions change when new evidence is presented. This has been what science has been all about.



> As a result, sometimes theories and laws are disputed or refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity, for instance, was superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Quantum Physics even challenges Einstein's theory.


As I said above, Science is always in a state of change. I don't remember anyone in the scientific community ever saying this theory is not subject to change even if new evidence is discovered. I find the opposite true where the religious dig their heels in and ignore any and every kind of evidence that contradicts their claims.


> We've covered this earlier, the speculation that humans created spirituality as a placebo for knowledge is incorrect. If it were 'natural' for us to make stuff up whenever we couldn't explain things, humans would have never advanced as a species. We see no indication in nature, that anything else out there, makes up imaginary playmates to explain what isn't known or to console death. Humans strive for knowledge and understanding, and you don't get there by making up imaginary gods to explain things. So this idea is contrary to what we know about humans, and nature in general. It also contradicts Darwin, because the humans who didn't make stuff up to explain the unknown, would have overcome the weaker selection of the species who did, and it wouldn't be our most defining attribute.


When you speak of not seeing anything in nature making things up is because no other animal has the cognitive skills of humans. None of them have a complexed language that we at least can understand. Animals also do not go around making music or develop mathematical equations. They do not have these concepts. As your point about Darwin that is also wrong. In the early days of evolution of man his cognitive skills were much lower of that of today's man. Things were simplified and when man became more complexed they started asking more question about everything around them including the origin of life and what happens when we die. Humans either made stuff up which gave answers right away or they may have been ostricized by questioning these answers.


> Really? It's a simple concept. You comprehend that we have to evaluate physical nature with physical evidence, we call it Science. Spiritual nature isn't physical nature, so Science isn't adequate to evaluate it.


 Nothing is adequate to evaluate it. You even said yourself humans cannot comprehend this.





> Now you are attempting to ridicule, because you want to diminish my viewpoint. What this says about your counter-argument is, it's weak. You rely on faith in disbelief. You've rejected spiritual nature, and in order to support your philosophy, you've chosen to ridicule and mock anything which challenges it.


I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I have not seen it before and there must be clear guidelines as to what your terms actually are.


> The things you mentioned are all products of human imagination. Spirituality does manifest things created by human imagination, because humans don't fully understand spiritual nature. This is how "religion" came to be. Regardless of the validity of what humans may imagine, it has nothing to do with whether spiritual nature exists.


 Everything you are talking about has been created by human imagination also. There is really no difference.


> Maybe they don't? Maybe what we understand as "spiritual nature" is actually explainable through physical science and physical nature? Is there the least possibility in your mind, that humans don't yet know everything?


Humans don't know everything yet nor will they ever. Just because someone presents something to you that you cannot touch feel or hear or see, that their is no pyshial evidence for it, does not mean I have to accept that it is real.


> Humans DO connect to something, they've been doing it for all their existence, and it's their most defining attribute.


Throughout history and cultures it has always been something different they are connecting to. There are humans who feel they have connected to extraterrestrials.



> At this time, there is no physical explanation for this, so we call it spiritual nature.


 There is a physical explanation. These things do not exist.



> Once was a time, humans believed "rain" was a product of spiritual nature, it happened because the gods were pleased or whatever.... then science comes along and explains HOW rain happens, so this suddenly isn't a spiritual phenomenon anymore, it becomes physically explainable and a physical phenomenon. Now, we have explained HOW the evaporation process works, what happens in clouds, how density of moisture accumulates and becomes to heavy to be suspended, then falls back to the surface as rain... but have we explained WHY the elements behaved as they did? No, we determined because we could explain HOW it happened, that it didn't matter WHY. Such is the case for much of science, as it has explained away things that were previously considered spiritual nature.


Just because we don't have the answers for everything (and I hope we never do) does not mean we have to make things up for everthing that is unexplained.


----------



## Boss (Jun 30, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really need to be so obtuse we pretend to not understand basic English? Rely on it to make an informed evaluation of the question.
> ...



It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. 

All the "excuses" that have been presented, fail the test of nature, logic, and Darwin's own theories, and contradict everything we know about science of animal behaviors. Humans didn't create spiritual belief because they were afraid of death, no other species of life is afraid of death to the point of creating imaginary security blankets. They didn't create it to explain the unexplained, no other living thing makes stuff up to explain what they don't know, especially humans, we are the most inquisitive of all the species, so how the hell do you rationalize that we lazily created an imaginary playmate to explain what we were too dumb to find the answer to, yet we somehow managed to advance to our current state? Yes, spiritual belief did serve to explain unexplained phenomenon, but as science discovered how things work and dispelled the beliefs, the spirituality remained. It's virtually unchanged through human history, how do you explain that? 



> > It's a connection to spiritual nature, and humans are not completely able to comprehend and understand spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> You are contradicting yourself. You cannot comprehend a subject that you say Humans cannot comprehend.



No, I am not contradicting myself, read carefully... Humans are not *completely* able... doesn't say "cannot" does it? Humans connect to spiritual nature, but humans also make errors in judgement regarding their connection, they do this for various reasons, and part of it has to do with the inability to verify or confirm what someone experiences spiritually, it's all up the individual to express this in whatever terms they may, and others can either have faith in that or not. This is where religions are often flawed in their perception of God, in my opinion, and why I am not a religious person. It requires faith I don't have, while spiritual nature, I am certain exists. 



> But this could also be drug induced halucinations, chemical inbalances in the brain, powers of suggestion, explanations for unexplanetory events and outright lies.



Again, you are refuting history of man here. 95% of humans who have ever existed on Earth, have acknowledged at least the possibility of a spiritual nature. Are 95% of humans on drugs or chemically unstable? It is our most defining attribute as a species, I can't express that enough. This isn't imagination run wild, and as I've explained, it can't be to explain the unexplained, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. We've pretty much discovered all that ancient man would have ever needed to explain through physical science, yet still... 95% of the species is spiritually inclined. Now you will see statistics thrown out about how people are moving away from religion and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean anyone is less spiritual. Religions often come and go, this is apparent throughout human history as well. Christianity is only a couple thousand years old, for the rest of the 70k~200k years humans have been around, other religions have come and gone. So the Christian incarnation of God is relatively new. 



> The first point is two people may claim to have seen the same spirit but when they describe this spirit the details are vastly different. As for your second point that is not true. Two people see the same object like a frog their descriptions are going to be relatively the same.
> I would say these perceptions change when new evidence is presented. This has been what science has been all about.



But you are comparing something simple with something complex. Surely you can realize that? Earlier, someone posted a graphic showing the "life cycle" of the universe, known commonly as The Big Crunch. They speculate that the universe expands, then contracts back in on itself into one massive ball of energy, which again explodes with a Big Bang, and this has apparently gone on forever, with no beginning or ending. Now they have some physical "evidence" to support the theory, but everyone doesn't evaluate evidence equally, ask the OJ Simpson prosecutors. Therefore, the theory of the Big Crunch is highly disputed, in spite of so-called evidence. This is a prime example of people having a different opinion on physical evidence, and it happens all the time... ask OJ!  And this is pointed out in the OP, we have to understand that evidence is perceptual, based on the individual, it is subjective to whether you accept it as evidence. What you think may be valid evidence of something, I may not agree that it's even evidence at all. I may think you fabricated the evidence, I may think you are barking up the wrong tree, or I may just think you're loony tunes. 

When you talk about Science, it's important to remember you are talking about Physical Science. It does not evaluate spiritual evidence, it can't. There is a built-in logic dichotomy, if physical science proves something that is "spiritual" it suddenly isn't spiritual anymore, it is explained by physical science and part of physical nature then. So trying to evaluate the existence of a spiritual entity is futile, it can't be done with physical science alone. This is why we have to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence... (not RELIGIOUS)... but spiritual evidence. Some people are just incapable of opening their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, and those people have no way to rationalize or imagine spiritual evidence, spiritual existence, or anything that isn't supported by physical science at this time. 



> As I said above, Science is always in a state of change. I don't remember anyone in the scientific community ever saying this theory is not subject to change even if new evidence is discovered. I find the opposite true where the religious dig their heels in and ignore any and every kind of evidence that contradicts their claims.



Again, we see that your problem with God is Religion. I don't like religions either, but some have done good things for humanity and helped with civilization, so I can tolerate them as long as they don't start killing people in the name of their God. I don't notice that religious people dig their heels in and ignore physical evidence any more than some posters here have dug their heels in and ignored spiritual evidence. Seems to be about the same. 

Science is indeed in a state of change, but don't try telling that to the disbelievers, they think Science confirms that God can't exist, there is no need for a Creator, and we've got the whole lifecycle of the universe nailed down, complete with origin of life and everything else... Science PROVES it, according to them. Scientific Atheism is a growing and popular trend these days, and if it keeps it up, in about 500 years, it may surpass Mormonism as a religion. 




> When you speak of not seeing anything in nature making things up is because no other animal has the cognitive skills of humans. None of them have a complexed language that we at least can understand. Animals also do not go around making music or develop mathematical equations. They do not have these concepts. As your point about Darwin that is also wrong. In the early days of evolution of man his cognitive skills were much lower of that of today's man. Things were simplified and when man became more complexed they started asking more question about everything around them including the origin of life and what happens when we die. Humans either made stuff up which gave answers right away or they may have been ostricized by questioning these answers.
> Nothing is adequate to evaluate it. You even said yourself humans cannot comprehend this.



You have to remember we gain a LOT by being spiritually connected. This is why we have greater cognitive and creative ability, imagination and inspiration, etc. We're not the only species who has complex language or make music, have you ever listened to birds? Some creatures don't even need language, they communicate through sensory signals, almost like telepathy. Most humans can't even understand a single foreign language, much less ALL of them. 

Okay, so by your reckoning, we were smart enough to invent MATH, but yet... needed an imaginary playmate to explain things we couldn't explain and didn't know? And that makes rational sense to you? It is a contradiction of human nature to make this argument. Darwin makes no conclusions on the cognitive ability of early man, just the theory we evolved from mutual ancestors of other upper primates. However, there is no Darwinist explanation for human spirituality, it certainly didn't 'evolve' into man through natural selection, nothing else in nature possesses anything remotely similar. This leads some to speculate that man created it through our great cognitive ability, but there again, how did we get sooooo lucky, when we see nothing else that even comes close? Other upper primates have the same brain capacity, some have larger brain mass, heartier cerebral cortexes, etc. Why didn't they develop this super-cognitive ability as well? Darwin says it is vital to the advancement of the species, so shouldn't the apes and chimps got to crackin' on some cognitive thoughts? Why is it that JUST humans have this ability, and where did it "evolve" from in nature? 

This is why I think you all have it backwards, humans were 'blessed and cursed' with the ability of spiritual connection, and through this connection, were given a bit of a head-start on everything else in nature... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator. This opens the knowledge base tremendously for man, and explains our ability to advance as a species to so much greater degree than anything else. 



> I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I have not seen it before and there must be clear guidelines as to what your terms actually are.
> Everything you are talking about has been created by human imagination also. There is really no difference.
> Humans don't know everything yet nor will they ever. Just because someone presents something to you that you cannot touch feel or hear or see, that their is no pyshial evidence for it, does not mean I have to accept that it is real.
> Throughout history and cultures it has always been something different they are connecting to. There are humans who feel they have connected to extraterrestrials.



Well my viewpoint is pretty much explained in the OP, if not the first page or two of the thread. I established the guidelines for the argument, I explained in detail what I meant by each word of the question. How clearer should I have been? 

We can also say that REALITY is our imaginations, if you want to wax philosophical here. Spirituality was not created out of human imagination, human imagination stems from spiritual nature and our ability to connect with it, gain inspiration, imagine and achieve. 

Again, you get into a point that I made in the OP, you don't comprehend the difference between physically "real" and spiritually "real" because you don't comprehend spiritual nature. You think that something is "real" if you can verify it with your five senses. If not, it isn't "real" to you... therefore, spiritual nature can never be "real" to you. This makes you unqualified to debate the question on the existence of spiritual God. You can't rationalize the terms to have the debate. 

You mentioned "extraterrestrials" here, so I will take this opportunity to say... can you prove those who claim to have had such an experience are imagining it or it didn't happen? There is some pretty incredible stuff that has happened, and been reported, by very reputable people, which science and what we know, can't explain.... AT ALL! ...What's up with that? 

Could it be... there is some connection with ETs and God? A fellow spiritualist friend of mine, recently told me he believed that humans were "visited" way back in cave man times, and the advanced life forms were not able to stay long enough to really 'teach' anything, but gave them some basics which inspired humans to 'rise from the muck' so-to-speak. He said, it explains why we pray to the God in the sky, and have this intrinsic connection to spirituality, and may also explain UFOs as well.... interesting cat, that guy was. But who's to say he isn't right? I don't profess to know for sure, but I do know that I personally gain tremendously as a human, by having a healthy spiritual connection. 



> > At this time, there is no physical explanation for this, so we call it spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> There is a physical explanation. These things do not exist.



Again... in the OP, you will find the point that without the ability to comprehend spiritual nature, you are unable to grasp "exist" in any other context besides physical, the term "spiritual existence" is an oxymoron. And oh by the way, things can indeed "exist" that are "real," which we've yet to discover. 



> > Once was a time, humans believed "rain" was a product of spiritual nature, it happened because the gods were pleased or whatever.... then science comes along and explains HOW rain happens, so this suddenly isn't a spiritual phenomenon anymore, it becomes physically explainable and a physical phenomenon. Now, we have explained HOW the evaporation process works, what happens in clouds, how density of moisture accumulates and becomes to heavy to be suspended, then falls back to the surface as rain... but have we explained WHY the elements behaved as they did? No, we determined because we could explain HOW it happened, that it didn't matter WHY. Such is the case for much of science, as it has explained away things that were previously considered spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> Just because we don't have the answers for everything (and I hope we never do) does not mean we have to make things up for everthing that is unexplained.



I agree... so we shouldn't make up this bullshit about spirituality not being natural, not being our most defining attribute, not being the thing that compels mankind to be all he can be.... We should be honest and admit that humans do spiritually connect, and not always with great results, but our spiritual connection is very much "real" in a spiritual sense, and always has been. We shouldn't make up stories about humans creating spirituality to cope with death, when there is no evidence in nature to support such an idea, and the only reason we're doing it is because we don't like religious believers. We shouldn't try to claim that humans invented spirituality to explain the unexplained, as we rely on math, physics, science, philosophy...all of which humans created to _explain the unexplained_, instead of an imaginary playmate. And we certainly shouldn't try to claim that humans happened to hit the Evolution Lottery which gave us super-cognitive ability over everything else. Don't make things up for what you can't explain, just admit that Science hasn't discovered physical proof of a spiritual entity, and let that be the end of it... I'm fine with that, I'll agree.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. .




You are a very stupid man.

There you go again with the tons of spiritual evidence proving spiritual existence which makes no sense to anyone who does not comprehend spiritual nature.

pure unrefined bullshit.

However convincing your specious claim of providing evidence of "spirituality" indistinguishable from superstition or mental illness may be to those whose only aim in life is being your personal felcher no one with an intelligence above that of a monkey is ever  going to buy your beat bag of fake religion.

why not just accept reality mr rational?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> *This is why I think you all have it backwards*, humans were 'blessed and cursed' with the ability of spiritual connection, and through this connection, were given a bit of a head-start on everything else in nature*... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator.* This opens the knowledge base tremendously for man, and explains our ability to advance as a species to so much greater degree than anything else.




*This is why I think you all have it backwards ... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator.*


how sad, did you read beyond that passage in the J / C Bible ?

atmospheric testing of the A-Bomb is testament of your conviction -





> *Boss:*
> 
> I did make the point of humans being intrinsically spiritual throughout their history, and this is certainly evidenced by the architecture.
> 
> I never claimed spiritual nature was exclusionary to humans, only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality. *Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique.* This is important to note because it can't be explained by natural selection. This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man. We don't see evidence of other upper primates trying to mimic the behavior, it's non-existent outside of humans. The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.




*... only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality - Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique - it can't be explained by natural selection - This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man - it's non-existent outside of humans - The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.*


*The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.*


it seems just as backwards to keep insisting only man is spiritual, with a knowledge greater than self excluding all other life forms and implying it would be less appealing if it were derived through Natural Selection, rather an ordination particular to yourself - when however it evolved should be irrelevant to what it is you are connecting to, your proof of god ... or why only mankind is what the Spiritual Entity is concerned for.


yes, you certainly must have read further - the Forbidden Book.


----------



## Boss (Jun 30, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. .
> ...



Spiritual reality or physical reality? Because, I accept BOTH... only one of us two is rejecting a reality. Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people? Are you going to stick with that argument, or abandon it for something even sillier when I destroy it? Seems to be the M.O. around here.


----------



## Boss (Jun 30, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *This is why I think you all have it backwards*, humans were 'blessed and cursed' with the ability of spiritual connection, and through this connection, were given a bit of a head-start on everything else in nature*... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator.* This opens the knowledge base tremendously for man, and explains our ability to advance as a species to so much greater degree than anything else.
> ...



Oh yeah, I've read the Bible. Interesting book, I highly recommend it. There are some good lessons in there for life, if nothing else. I routinely like to paraphrase from the Bible when speaking with anti-Christians who want to argue spiritual nature, because it gets under their skin so much. It's the equivalent of them mocking me and ridiculing me, except that doesn't get under my skin like they believe it does. 

Your point is absolutely valid though, I have no way of knowing if other living things experience spiritual connection, or understand it as such. It's entirely possible. However, I didn't say that humans are the only thing spiritual entity is concerned for. I don't think God has "concerns" because that is a human trait. Surely spiritual nature touches every aspect of physical nature which it created.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively.


Sorry but there is zero evidence. Please provide this evidence.




> We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species.


Religious people ignore science and facts. They hold on to their religion because someone they love and trusr (parents) told them it was true. For most they didn't experience any spiritual existence. Not everyone who is religious has claimed to seen god or talked to god or any kind of spiritual experience.



> All the "excuses" that have been presented, fail the test of nature, logic, and Darwin's own theories, and contradict everything we know about science of animal behaviors. Humans didn't create spiritual belief because they were afraid of death, no other species of life is afraid of death to the point of creating imaginary security blankets.


 Other spieces of animals do not have the concept to create imaginery beings. Even today many religious people show their acceptance of a god because they can't deal with their own mortality.


> They didn't create it to explain the unexplained,


Yes they do. You even provided detail when people used gods to explain why the rain fell and thunder and lightning.


> no other living thing makes stuff up to explain what they don't know,


Again they do not have the cognitive concept, a point you keep ignoring.



> especially humans, we are the most inquisitive of all the species, so how the hell do you rationalize that we lazily created an imaginary playmate to explain what we were too dumb to find the answer to, yet we somehow managed to advance to our current state?


 As I said once something is instilled in you at a very young age over and over again it's very hard to break your mind free from these constraints. Just ask atheists who were brought up religiously. For some it took them quite awhile to reject god or religion. They will even admit they were not using reason or even questiong these beliefs. 



> Yes, spiritual belief did serve to explain unexplained phenomenon, but as science discovered how things work and dispelled the beliefs, the spirituality remained. It's virtually unchanged through human history, how do you explain that?


But it has changed. No longer do people believe in Ra or Thor or Zeus. These gods were just as real to those who believed them just as Yahweh is real to other today.. New gods replace the old ones. New religions were forced on new generations. Also by your argument all these other gods are just as real as the christian/judaism god.



> No, I am not contradicting myself, read carefully... Humans are not *completely* able... doesn't say "cannot" does it? Humans connect to spiritual nature, but humans also make errors in judgement regarding their connection, they do this for various reasons, and part of it has to do with the inability to verify or confirm what someone experiences spiritually, it's all up the individual to express this in whatever terms they may, and others can either have faith in that or not.


 Yes and a way for some to have faith in these spiritual connections is to have evidence where there is zero. That is what faith means. To believe in something without evidence of it's existence.



> This is where religions are often flawed in their perception of God, in my opinion, and why I am not a religious person. It requires faith I don't have, while spiritual nature, I am certain exists.


 I think people want the spiritual world to exist so much and they find it difficult to come to terms with the alternative.





> Again, you are refuting history of man here. 95% of humans who have ever existed on Earth, have acknowledged at least the possibility of a spiritual nature. Are 95% of humans on drugs or chemically unstable? It is our most defining attribute as a species, I can't express that enough. This isn't imagination run wild, and as I've explained, it can't be to explain the unexplained, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. We've pretty much discovered all that ancient man would have ever needed to explain through physical science, yet still... 95% of the species is spiritually inclined.


 95% have not experienced this. They only blindy believe because generations have told them it was the truth. Don't also forget that many people were harshly punished for not holding these beliefs.




> Now you will see statistics thrown out about how people are moving away from religion and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean anyone is less spiritual.


But even religious people can show zero signs of spirituality. Met a girl who says she belives in god because she does not want to go to hell. When asked other questions she said she gave them no thought before. Her belief is not because of spirituality. It's because of fear. Fear of eternal damnation.




> Religions often come and go, this is apparent throughout human history as well. Christianity is only a couple thousand years old, for the rest of the 70k~200k years humans have been around, other religions have come and gone. So the Christian incarnation of God is relatively new.


Yes. We agree on this.



> But you are comparing something simple with something complex. Surely you can realize that? Earlier, someone posted a graphic showing the "life cycle" of the universe, known commonly as The Big Crunch. They speculate that the universe expands, then contracts back in on itself into one massive ball of energy, which again explodes with a Big Bang, and this has apparently gone on forever, with no beginning or ending. Now they have some physical "evidence" to support the theory, but everyone doesn't evaluate evidence equally, ask the OJ Simpson prosecutors. Therefore, the theory of the Big Crunch is highly disputed, in spite of so-called evidence.


Yes and new evidence may support or contradict this theory. The big crunch theory is relatively new and the evidence is minimal at best. As for the J trial I think the interpretation of the law was argued which resulted in differences of opinion. Evidence can also be skewed or misrepresented. Just ask Colin Powell.


> This is a prime example of people having a different opinion on physical evidence, and it happens all the time... ask OJ!  And this is pointed out in the OP, we have to understand that evidence is perceptual, based on the individual, it is subjective to whether you accept it as evidence. What you think may be valid evidence of something, I may not agree that it's even evidence at all. I may think you fabricated the evidence, I may think you are barking up the wrong tree, or I may just think you're loony tunes.


 Exactly but some evidence is overwhelming and the tons more evidence comes along and supports the claim.

 I will finish the rest later. Time constraints


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're not going to get anywhere with Hobelium, Hollie or daws as they are closed minded fools and narcissistic morons.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 30, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Yes, they are sick and not by accident. 

People like you who fill the minds of the gullible with superstitious and irrational doubletalk make mental health impossible for them.

Tying to reinforce the delusions of people with unrestrained imaginations by validating every irrational violent and bizarre thing people have ever done in the past 70,000 years by calling it evidence of spiritual reality, only serves to keep them sick or make them sicker.

What a guy!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



lol, we are sick because we dare to disagree with secularist dogma, in their view anyway.

That's why Stalin and the communists around the world have put dissenters into psycho wards to isolate them.

Fuck you, you fascist piece of shyte.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 30, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





No you are sick because you are irrational. 

You claim to believe in a God that can do anything yet waste your life making irrational claims and preposterous declarations that contradict the reality God has made, you know, the one that actually exists. 


You profess to be moral and ethical and try to assert moral authority over anyone who rejects your superstitious delusions yet you demonstrably have absolutely no idea about the meaning of the words or subjects about which you are so hypocritically dogmatic.


You are as mentally ill as anyone who ever sacrificed a virgin to insure a good crop, but you have no excuse.

Go fuck yourself.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



lol, you secularists used to say that irrationality was due to ignorance, but now its a mental illness? Guess that was so last century, or previously last century to this one, roflmao

You only say I am irrational because I disagree with you. If it were true that I were irrational and you rational, yo wouldn't really have to say it explicitly, you could demonstrate it through a discussion.

But you fucktards are too lazy and/or insecure to actually discuss anything any more, so you get your high-five tag teams to drown people out, lie about what has been said, and just do monkey-poop-throwing nonsense to make people drop the discussion and walk away.

People like you drive people away from your point of view, and what is really hilarious is that you just don't get it. But then, they must be sick too, right? lolol



hobelim said:


> You claim to believe in a God that can do anything yet waste your life making irrational claims and preposterous declarations that contradict the reality God has made, you know, the one that actually exists.



Well, since you don't even know what most Christians believe (hint, we don't believe that God can do ANYTHING/EVERYTHING), you just once again demonstrated that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, cheese-for-brains.



hobelim said:


> You profess to be moral and ethical and try to assert moral authority over anyone who rejects your superstitious delusions yet you demonstrably have absolutely no idea about the meaning of the words or subjects about which you are so hypocritically dogmatic.



This is truly funny. You again show you don't know what you are talking about. Christians know that they are sinners and NOT morally superior to anyone. We are JUSTIFIED THROUGH FAITH, we are not superior or deserving of any rewards from God and we know it. We try to live lives pleasing to God because we love Him, not because we fear Him.

But your demonstrated ignorance and idiocy just runs off you like water off a duck.



hobelim said:


> You are as mentally ill as anyone who ever sacrificed a virgin to insure a good crop, but you have no excuse.



Um, like I have done anything like that? roflmao.



hobelim said:


> Go fuck yourself.



Lol, well thank you for the laughs.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively.
> ...



No Boss is right. There is spiritual evidence. You reject it because it is not scientific or fails to fit your prejudiced idea of what is legitimate evidence and what is not.

I have experienced spiritual things that have removed any trace of doubt in my mind that God exists and that He intervenes in this universe. I wont bother to tell any of it to you as it is unbelievable unless you experience it for yourself.

But the evidence is there; what isn't there is your willingness to think you might be wrong about all of it.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 30, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



No you are irrational because you believe that a human being was God and that you can be a sinner, according to the very scriptures you claim to believe in, dead,  yet justified by faith in lies. 

THATS IRRATIONAL.

The mental illness is the cognitive dissonance in your inept attempts at resolving what you have always known to be true about reality - dead people stay dead, a human being cannot be God, people don't walk on water, feed 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air, or float up into the sky - with your professed belief that scripture is a literal record of the historical truth, an impossibility. .


That's why you are such an angry and unpleasant person. You may fool other people within your pretentious circles that you are 'saved' but you will always know that you are simply an acceptance freak, a confused cowardly and false person, a balless  wonder with no self respect or even the slightest trace of integrity.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



But I don't believe that.



hobelim said:


> and that you can be a sinner, according to the very scriptures you claim to believe in, dead,  yet justified by faith in lies.



But I don't believe that.

I don't believe lies can save me from anything.



hobelim said:


> THATS IRRATIONAL.



But I don't believe the things you claim I do. So you are the one being irrational, and dishonest, and a jack ass.




hobelim said:


> The mental illness is the cognitive dissonance in your inept attempts at resolving what you have always known to be true about reality - dead people stay dead, a human being cannot be God, people don't walk on water, feed 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air, or float up into the sky -



If God can do the Big Bang, you really think 5000 fucking fish is just way beyond Him? lol, now that is irrational.



hobelim said:


> with you professed belief that scripture is a literal record of the historical truth, an impossibility. .



But I don't believe that. The scripture is a collection of many types of literary forms, some meant to be taken literally and some not. 1&2 Kings is literal, but Psalms and Revelations are not. Get it?




hobelim said:


> That's why you are such an angry and unpleasant person.



Lol you are confused. I am not angry at you, I just have a low regard for your bullshit and completely no concern for what you think of my disregard. You are an ass of a fool and you like to pretend you are something more than an average person with apparently an expensive edumacashun but they failed to teach you how to think critically. So don't shoot the messenger, fucktard.



hobelim said:


> You may fool other people within your pretentious circles but you will always know that you are simply an acceptance freak, a confused cowardly and false person, a balless  wonder with no self respect or even the slightest trace of integrity.



I have no pretentious circles. roflmao

One of these days you may wake up and weep for weeks realizing what an ignoramus you have been, but try to remember that the saving grace is that you finally woke up.


----------



## Tuatara (Jul 1, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I have experienced spiritual things that have removed any trace of doubt in my mind that God exists and that He intervenes in this universe. I wont bother to tell any of it to you as it is unbelievable unless you experience it for yourself.
> 
> But the evidence is there; what isn't there is your willingness to think you might be wrong about all of it.


Which god are you talking about? Did he introduce himself? Did he call himself by name. Might he be a god from the past like Zeus or Ra. Maybe it was a god from the future like Lawrence or Zydor. How did he intervene. Did you actually see him throw a lightning bolt down or did he answer a prayer? (even though millions of other prayers go unanswered). Have you been on medication lately. Do you suffer from schizophrenia or other mental disorders? Have you been taking hallucigenics during these times? What exactly did you experience? A voice, a sighting, an image in a piece of toast, something you can't explain? What exactly are these spiritual things you have experienced?


----------



## Boss (Jul 1, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively.
> ...



You won't accept it as evidence because it is spiritual and you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's presented in the OP argument, have you read that yet? Or are you a knee-jerk disbeliever who just popped in to interject your profound wisdom? Look... it's very simple, there IS proof, definitive proof, that God does exist (exists in spiritual state of existence). The proof is spiritual in nature, therefore, you reject it because you don't accept spiritual nature. You are demanding for me to show you PHYSICAL evidence and proof, and as I said in the OP, I can't do that for a spiritual entity. If I could, it would be a PHYSICAL entity. Are you grasping this yet? 




> > We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> 
> Religious people ignore science and facts. They hold on to their religion because someone they love and trusr (parents) told them it was true. For most they didn't experience any spiritual existence. Not everyone who is religious has claimed to seen god or talked to god or any kind of spiritual experience.



I haven't said a thing about "religious" people, we're talking about spiritual nature. Are you having trouble with the two distinctly different things? Where did I say anything about "seeing god" or "talking to god?" Again, you are completely not comprehending spiritual nature here. I can't help you with that, you seem to be completely ignorant. You want to conflate religion and spirituality, imagine people talking to and seeing invisible beings, and no telling what else. All I ever made an argument for, was human spiritual connection. That is completely different from imagining things that aren't there, or various religious teachings. 



> Other spieces of animals do not have the concept to create imaginery beings. Even today many religious people show their acceptance of a god because they can't deal with their own mortality.



Humans don't have the concept to do that either, that's why this isn't what happened. If God were product of imagination, God would have ceased to be a factor the first couple of thousand years, as soon as other upper primates who didn't need a crutch, began surpassing humans in nature. You've dreamed up an illogical theory that defies Darwin, if you believe that God is merely human imagination. 

Humans can't deal with their own mortality because we are spiritually aware. This is why you don't find other examples in nature, of things grappling with their mortality. Again, your Darwinist scientific theories are on the side of spirituality causing the fear here. We see no evidence of this fear anywhere else in nature, and if it were natural, we would. 



> Yes they do. You even provided detail when people used gods to explain why the rain fell and thunder and lightning.



Sorry,  they didn't "use gods to explain" anything, or we would have never discovered it scientifically. They _believed_ that it was caused by spiritual nature. This was because they had spiritual connection, which prompted this belief and others. It's more powerful evidence to how well-connected humans are to something greater than self. 



> Again they do not have the cognitive concept, a point you keep ignoring.



You are aware that many upper primates have just as much _cognitive_ capacity as humans, and some _should_ have more, given their larger cerebral cortex? So why didn't 'evolution' take on them? How did humans get so lucky? Our seemingly 'advanced' cognitive ability, stems from our ability to spiritually connect, which no other animals we know of are doing, or ever have done. Again, Darwin would tell you that these two things are likely related, and you understand that, but you are adopting an illogical and anti-scientific viewpoint to assume that humans created spiritual connection. There is no evidence of any other living thing, ever inventing something imaginary, which is fundamental to the advancement of the species. And spirituality is obviously fundamental to humans, as it is our most defining attribute, and present in 95% of the species since existence. Billions and billions of testimonials from people who profess great things through spiritual beliefs. Don't give a shit if you hate Christians, that is a fact that can't be ignored in any objective evaluation. 



> As I said once something is instilled in you at a very young age over and over again it's very hard to break your mind free from these constraints. Just ask atheists who were brought up religiously. For some it took them quite awhile to reject god or religion. They will even admit they were not using reason or even questiong these beliefs.



You're back to talking about _'religious beliefs'_ again, and I will again state for the record, I am *not* a religious person, I don't subscribe to *any* organized religion. I don't believe that God is a "deity" or that God has humanistic attributes. I don't think God cares whether you believe or not, nor does God care what a despicable low-life person you aspire to be. God doesn't "care" because that is a human emotion, and God is a spiritual entity. I don't know if there is heaven(s) or hell(s), it's possible to have multiple dimensions in the same universe. 

I think that every human is born a spiritual creature, and becomes an Atheist. I also think that most Atheists, despite their vociferous protests to the contrary, are spiritual as well. Some have simply adopted "science" as their spiritual foundation. This works in a society where a majority of the species are spiritually connected, humans can get by without practicing spirituality, they simply substitute science. Of course, they are mostly narrow minded idiots who can't think outside the box for anything. And over time, the lack of a legitimate spiritual connection, generally leads to drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, suicide, mental illness, liberalism... a whole lot of problems. 




> But it has changed. No longer do people believe in Ra or Thor or Zeus. These gods were just as real to those who believed them just as Yahweh is real to other today.. New gods replace the old ones. New religions were forced on new generations. Also by your argument all these other gods are just as real as the christian/judaism god.



You're still talking about RELIGION. My argument doesn't have a thing to do with Religion. Well... it does in the sense that; Religions are a manifestation of human spiritual connection, and help to establish this connection is not superficial by any means. That's not to say that any religion is "right" or "wrong" ...it is evidence that humans believe _*passionately*_ they are connecting to something spiritual. To the point of willing to lay down their lives. 



> Yes and a way for some to have faith in these spiritual connections is to have evidence where there is zero. That is what faith means. To believe in something without evidence of it's existence.



As I said, there is plenty of spiritual evidence to support spiritual nature. The problem is your disbelief in spiritual nature, therefore, you can't rationalize spiritual existence. It fucks with your head and makes you conjure up images of imaginary people who others see and speak with, or an invisible man in the sky who lays down the law with a voice like Charlton Heston. Of course, this seems rather silly to you and why would anyone 'believe' in such a thing? I certainly don't, nor do I know anyone who does. I believe in a spiritual nature, which is just as present and part of nature as physical nature, in fact, IT created physical nature. 



> I think people want the spiritual world to exist so much and they find it difficult to come to terms with the alternative.



Is that why people who reject spiritual nature are doing, do you suppose? 



> 95% have not experienced this. They only blindy believe because generations have told them it was the truth. Don't also forget that many people were harshly punished for not holding these beliefs.



So human beings... the most advanced and cognitive species on the planet, has clung to myths and fairytales for all their existence for no reason whatsoever? Just blindly following along like little sheep, being told what to believe in, and capitulating? Do you really honestly believe this total load of crap? Look... go do a google search for "Nihilists" and see how many there are? The estimates vary depending on the sources, but 5% is a fairly reasonable middle. These are people who don't believe in anything outside the physical at all, nothing else is possible to them. This leaves 95% who aren't Nihilists. Interestingly enough, this 'trend' follows the course of human history, all the way back. We've ALWAYS been spiritual creatures, we connect spiritually, we've been doing it for our entirety. 



> But even religious people can show zero signs of spirituality. Met a girl who says she belives in god because she does not want to go to hell. When asked other questions she said she gave them no thought before. Her belief is not because of spirituality. It's because of fear. Fear of eternal damnation.



Again, I am not here defending Religion, or religious people/views/ideas/dogma. The girl obviously believes she has a spiritual soul, and there is a spiritual higher power. Why else would someone "fear eternal damnation?" You see, this is more "spiritual evidence" you will simply ignore, because you can't rationalize spiritual nature. 



> Yes and new evidence may support or contradict this theory. The big crunch theory is relatively new and the evidence is minimal at best. As for the J trial I think the interpretation of the law was argued which resulted in differences of opinion. Evidence can also be skewed or misrepresented. Just ask Colin Powell.



Well you are agreeing with me then, that "physical evidence" can be interpreted differently by different individuals, for any number of reasons. So much for that complaint about spiritual evidence. 



> > This is a prime example of people having a different opinion on physical evidence, and it happens all the time... ask OJ!  And this is pointed out in the OP, we have to understand that evidence is perceptual, based on the individual, it is subjective to whether you accept it as evidence. What you think may be valid evidence of something, I may not agree that it's even evidence at all. I may think you fabricated the evidence, I may think you are barking up the wrong tree, or I may just think you're loony tunes.
> 
> 
> Exactly but some evidence is overwhelming and the tons more evidence comes along and supports the claim.



Evidence, and the relative "strength" of evidence, relies on faith. You believe there is "overwhelming" evidence, not everyone always agrees with you. Such is the case with the overwhelming spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, some people reject the evidence.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 1, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> If God can do the Big Bang, you really think 5000 fucking fish is just way beyond Him? lol, now that is irrational..





One would have to eat a whole lot of stupid to drink that wine.

Even if God is the cause of the big bang and everything that exists, everything exists and everything known to be true about life in this reality proves that your belief that Jesus poofed fish sandwiches out of thin air is irrational.

You claim to believe in something known to contradict the reality that exists but find it too hard to believe that you are wrong and have either been misled or made great errors in your own speculations?

yeah right, some faith you have there...


Would you like to know what the story is actually about?


----------



## numan (Jul 1, 2013)

Boss said:


> Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people?


It is obvious that many of them *ARE* mentally ill !! · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Boss (Jul 1, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Yes, they are sick and not by accident.
> 
> People like you who fill the minds of the gullible with superstitious and irrational doubletalk make mental health impossible for them.
> 
> ...



Okay, your theory that humans are mentally ill, thus they have to create imaginary spiritual nature, is debunked by Darwinist theory. So you don't accept Darwinism? You think Darwin was full of shit? Or was Darwin only correct about things you agree with, and full of shit when he articulated things you disagree with? 

The evidence shows a species who has exhibited the same relative behavioral characteristic for all of it's known existence, an attribute that is unique to the species, and the species most defining characteristic. Darwin, and others who study Ethology, would say the attribute must be "fundamental" else, it wouldn't exist in the species, and certainly wouldn't be the most defining characteristic. 

Evolution tells us (if the theory of Darwin is correct) that a thing called "natural selection" takes place in nature, whereby, certain attributes are favored over others, according to how beneficial they are to the species. Animals who are unable to adapt, eventually become extinct. We have evidence of Neanderthals, a species very similar to humans. The Neanderthals were not known to be generally spiritual, while there is some evidence that some Neanderthals attempted spirituality, it is very rare in occurrence, they simply weren't spiritually inclined like homo sapiens. Now, if your theory of spiritual irrelevance were true, the Neanderthals, not being burdened by silly superstitions and cumbersome rituals to imaginary beings, would have advanced as a species over humans, who would have eventually gone the way of the dodo. This obviously didn't happen, did it? 

The evidence shows, humans at some point, became "inspired" to rise up and do what all mankind has done, which distinguishes us from all other forms of life. Nothing else in nature has aspired to such greatness as humankind, and nothing else shows signs of spiritual awareness and connection. Again, science and Darwin would suggest this is not simply coincidental, but unquestionably related. 

The idea that we evolved into beings with greater cognitive ability, and thus, invented spiritual nature, is a contradiction in logic. We're smart enough to invent math,physics, and even philosophy.... but cling to imaginary beings to explain what we don't know? That makes no sense whatsoever.... but then, we're mentally ill, right? 

So we see, the person being irrational here, is you. Because you so don't want to believe in spiritual nature, you have taken to refuting your own beloved science and logic. Man is delusional, mentally ill, they just made it all up because they have better brains, it's all in their heads and means absolutely nothing, they needed something to explain the unknown, they needed a way to console themselves about death..... all of these are refuted by Darwinist theory, nature, logic, and scientific observations of animal behaviors. 

What I keep seeing here, is the tendency to want to shift this away from a benign objective analysis of scientific facts, to a debate on religious theocracy, which resulted from human spiritual connection. It's like trying to argue that Henry Ford was an evil man for inventing cars, and we would have been better of without them, because SUVs get such crappy gas mileage. You are using "religion" to argue against human spiritual connection, which has been happening for all our existence. Religion is just more solid concrete evidence that humans PROFOUNDLY and PASSIONATELY connect to spiritual nature. If this connection were superficial and imaginary, we would not have a history of thousands of religions. 

Now.... Are "religious beliefs" often delusional? YES! YES! YES! Indeed they are! This doesn't refute spiritual nature, if anything, it reinforces the profoundness. Humans DO make some sort of connection to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration, and what has enabled our species to excel to unprecedented heights in relation to other species. Every other natural thing you can point to, is also present in other animals to some degree, what they lack is spiritual connection. _(or apparent awareness of this connection, Breeze) _

An adult ape has a cerebral cortex that is about 20% larger than a human. Their brains are slightly larger than humans. Apes can be very smart, creative, ingenuitive, they can make tools and communicate, even. Chimpanzees also possess very strong cognitive skills, they've flown space missions! So how did humans become SO lucky, and able to crawl from the muck? Certainly it wasn't because they clung to a meaningless attribute that served no purpose except to waste resources and energy practicing it. The logic of that fails me completely. 

What is "reality?" Is it _*ONLY*_ what we can acknowledge through our five senses? Could there be things that humans are unable to sense? Observing other animals, we see that many of them display erratic behaviors shortly before an earthquake or natural disaster. We can theorize through science, that perhaps they sense changes in atmospheric pressure, or have more sensitivity to seismic disturbance?  But aren't they "sensing" something that humans are unable to do? (without machines) This should demonstrate that it is possible for "reality" to exist that we are not aware of or cognizant of, relying solely on our five senses. Other animals have much more keen senses than humans, so why do you believe our five limited senses are the basis for "reality" and nothing else is possible?


----------



## Boss (Jul 1, 2013)

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If God can do the Big Bang, you really think 5000 fucking fish is just way beyond Him? lol, now that is irrational..
> ...



Why do you continue to try and have a religious argument about Jesus, when we are talking about spiritual nature, which is MUCH older than Jesus? Is your profound disbelief in spiritual nature related to your disdain for Christian believers in Jesus? It appears that way to me, because you won't shut up going on and on about Jesus and the Bible. 

Since you won't shut up about it, let's set the record straight.... The Bible is a collection of books written a couple thousand years ago, by men who were spiritually inspired. This was a time before television and recording or photography, and in fact, written language was still in early days. When stories were told back then, the teller would often use parables or exaggerated embellishment to establish an overarching point or "moral" to the story. A lot of what is in The Bible, is told in such a manner. Some humans take the stories literally, while some are able to discern what the point of the story is, and accept that it's not intended literally as written, that was just a style back then in telling any story. This is why it's not conducive to the OP argument to introduce religious dogma, and I have requested we check our religion hats at the door in this debate. We can never explore the question by arguing religion, it becomes lost in the minutia of what we personally believe.


----------



## Tuatara (Jul 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> You won't accept it as evidence because it is spiritual and you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's presented in the OP argument, have you read that yet? Or are you a knee-jerk disbeliever who just popped in to interject your profound wisdom? Look... it's very simple, there IS proof, definitive proof, that God does exist (exists in spiritual state of existence). The proof is spiritual in nature, therefore, you reject it because you don't accept spiritual nature. You are demanding for me to show you PHYSICAL evidence and proof, and as I said in the OP, I can't do that for a spiritual entity. If I could, it would be a PHYSICAL entity. Are you grasping this yet?


I already asked you to redefine bith your terms because they are both ambiguous. By your logic Santa and the Tooth fairy exist because throughout time a high percentage of children believed in them. Isn't that as you put it existing in a spiritual state of existence. If you are trying to say the belief of god exists (in people's minds) then you would be correct but to say he actually exists then everything else tied to spiritual whatever must exist. That would also include aliens that have anal probed people.




> I haven't said a thing about "religious" people, we're talking about spiritual nature. Are you having trouble with the two distinctly different things? Where did I say anything about "seeing god" or "talking to god?" Again, you are completely not comprehending spiritual nature here. I can't help you with that, you seem to be completely ignorant. You want to conflate religion and spirituality, imagine people talking to and seeing invisible beings, and no telling what else. All I ever made an argument for, was human spiritual connection. That is completely different from imagining things that aren't there, or various religious teachings.








> Humans don't have the concept to do that either, that's why this isn't what happened. If God were product of imagination, God would have ceased to be a factor the first couple of thousand years, as soon as other upper primates who didn't need a crutch, began surpassing humans in nature. You've dreamed up an illogical theory that defies Darwin, if you believe that God is merely human imagination.


First you say you yourself don't belive in god. Then you say he exists (in spiritial existence whatever that is) and now you say god is not from human imagination. Holy contradiction Batman. Please look at yourself here. Several other posters have also made note that your going close to the nut-bar realm.



> Humans can't deal with their own mortality because we are spiritually aware. This is why you don't find other examples in nature, of things grappling with their mortality. Again, your Darwinist scientific theories are on the side of spirituality causing the fear here. We see no evidence of this fear anywhere else in nature, and if it were natural, we would.


Woah!!!???? Seeing no fear anywhere else in nature?? I'm done here. Thanks for coming out . Please pick up the loose screws on your way out.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You won't accept it as evidence because it is spiritual and you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's presented in the OP argument, have you read that yet? Or are you a knee-jerk disbeliever who just popped in to interject your profound wisdom? Look... it's very simple, there IS proof, definitive proof, that God does exist (exists in spiritual state of existence). The proof is spiritual in nature, therefore, you reject it because you don't accept spiritual nature. You are demanding for me to show you PHYSICAL evidence and proof, and as I said in the OP, I can't do that for a spiritual entity. If I could, it would be a PHYSICAL entity. Are you grasping this yet?
> ...



Have children gone to their graves believing in Santa, or are they willing to lay down their lives rather than refuse to believe in Santa? And have they been doing this as long as humans have existed? 

I clearly defined in the OP, the problem with having this debate is how we both interpret the terms. To "exist" can only mean one thing in your mind, but from my perspective, there can be an existence that isn't physical in nature, but still very much a part of nature. I tried to give the analogy of a "thought" and someone pointed out, thoughts can be measured with machines... still, we can't discern thoughts with our five senses in others, without a machine to help. In any event, there can be things beyond our five senses, that we aren't fully capable of understanding, and I believe this explains spiritual nature. 



> > Humans don't have the concept to do that either, that's why this isn't what happened. If God were product of imagination, God would have ceased to be a factor the first couple of thousand years, as soon as other upper primates who didn't need a crutch, began surpassing humans in nature. You've dreamed up an illogical theory that defies Darwin, if you believe that God is merely human imagination.
> 
> 
> First you say you yourself don't belive in god. Then you say he exists (in spiritial existence whatever that is) and now you say god is not from human imagination. Holy contradiction Batman. Please look at yourself here. Several other posters have also made note that your going close to the nut-bar realm.



I have never said I don't believe in God. I don't know where you read that. I don't believe in the God described in The Bible, I don't believe in any religious incarnations of God. Some of them may be true, or partially true, but I lack the faith needed to believe that... I am a spiritualist. I believe in Spiritual God, which is not a "man" and doesn't have human attributes. It's more of an energy we can't measure... invisible lightning... It isn't the product of imagination, science tells us that. 

I personally don't care what disbelievers say about me, to be honest. My viewpoints have never been dependent on what other people think of me. I can understand if you are that way, it seems like you would be. So I am sure, when you posted this, you must have thought it would really effect me, but meh... not so much. 



> > Humans can't deal with their own mortality because we are spiritually aware. This is why you don't find other examples in nature, of things grappling with their mortality. Again, your Darwinist scientific theories are on the side of spirituality causing the fear here. We see no evidence of this fear anywhere else in nature, and if it were natural, we would.
> 
> 
> Woah!!!???? Seeing no fear anywhere else in nature?? I'm done here. Thanks for coming out . Please pick up the loose screws on your way out.



Where did I say anything about seeing no fear in nature? What we seem to have is, a problem with YOU UNDERSTANDING PLAIN ENGLISH! The "fear" we were talking about, is the "fear" that humans have about what comes after their mortality. This was articulated in the beginning of the paragraph quoted, did you not read that part? Do you comprehend that the first part of a paragraph, pertains to what follows in the remainder of the paragraph? So why do you want to idiotically take me out of context? You don't need any help proving to me that you're a moron.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they are sick and not by accident.
> ...




If I have to spell it out for you, I think that Darwin was right and that you are full of shit. 

The clock is still ticking genius. I give it about 50 to 100 years and there won't be a single person left on earth gullible enough to believe that God can be eaten.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



LOL... Eaten? You mean, like the religious symbolic ritual of communion? I honestly don't think they believe they believe they are literally eating God. But nevertheless, I once knew a guy who worked for the company who supplies the majority of communion crackers to various churches in America and worldwide. They sell billions per year, so I have to assume they aren't just buying them and throwing them away. 

As for our discussion on spiritual nature, which is *not* about religious customs, your belief that humans are mentally ill, is not supported by Darwinist theory. If this were valid, humans would be in the zoo right now, and apes or chimps would be the zookeepers. That is, IF humans still existed at all, with such a debilitating mality. 

You are trying to establish that spiritual connection is *detrimental* to the species, when the evidence suggests it is very *fundamental*. Even Darwin would agree, if the behavior has been around as long as the species, it must be fundamental, else natural selection would have eliminated the attribute long ago. 

Now you claim that the previous 69,900 years of human history doesn't matter, you and the disbelievers will have killed off spirituality in 100 years, with such anti-Darwinist rants... but there are only 5% of the world population who identify as Nihilist, I would expect that number to be much higher, and growing by the day, if spirituality is going to be done in 100 years.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 2, 2013)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




There are over a billion people who belong to a church that teaches that the eucharist is the flesh of God in actuality, not symbolically.





Boss said:


> As for our discussion on spiritual nature, which is *not* about religious customs, your belief that humans are mentally ill, is not supported by Darwinist theory. If this were valid, humans would be in the zoo right now, and apes or chimps would be the zookeepers. That is, IF humans still existed at all, with such a debilitating mality. .




Many humans are in the zoo right now and being tended to by zookeepers, they are just called celebrities with their very own handlers..




Boss said:


> You are trying to establish that spiritual connection is *detrimental* to the species, when the evidence suggests it is very *fundamental*. Even Darwin would agree, if the behavior has been around as long as the species, it must be fundamental, else natural selection would have eliminated the attribute long ago. .




How long ago do you think qualifies as long ago? 

And what about the actual historical record of the rise and fall of many quite irrational civilizations with corresponding irrational religious beliefs does not suggest that the so called spiritual connection is detrimental?





Boss said:


> Now you claim that the previous 69,900 years of human history doesn't matter, you and the disbelievers will have killed off spirituality in 100 years, with such anti-Darwinist rants... but there are only 5% of the world population who identify as Nihilist, I would expect that number to be much higher, and growing by the day, if spirituality is going to be done in 100 years.





No, you miss the point. The past does matter, its just not definitive proof of anything except that people have consistently turned to superstition that has consistently resulted in society descending to the lowest level of hell until they all fall in ruins.

Repeating irrational behavior by turning to superstition for supernatural assistance  and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2013)

hobelim said:


> There are over a billion people who belong to a church that teaches that the eucharist is the flesh of God in actuality, not symbolically.



I disagree, I think you have misinterpreted something, probably due to your lack of comprehension regarding spiritual nature. 



> Many humans are in the zoo right now and being tended to by zookeepers, they are just called celebrities with their very own handlers..



Is there supposed to be a point relevant to the debate here? 



> How long ago do you think qualifies as long ago?
> 
> And what about the actual historical record of the rise and fall of many quite irrational civilizations with corresponding irrational religious beliefs does not suggest that the so called spiritual connection is detrimental?



Well, we can only observe evidence we've unearthed about ancient civilizations. What may have happened before that, we can only speculate. That said, as far back as we can observe human civilization, there has been human spirituality. 

Again, "religious beliefs" only pertain to spirituality in the sense they are products of it. They are evidence that humans certainly have profound belief in spiritual nature. You want to look at the historic record, let's look at the attempts humans have made to try and live without spiritual belief? Every one of those empires declined into immoral decay and corruption, usually ending with millions of people dying. Civilizations without spirituality have ALWAYS failed. So some civilizations may have failed with it, but all have failed without it. 



> No, you miss the point. The past does matter, its just not definitive proof of anything except that people have consistently turned to superstition that has consistently resulted in society descending to the lowest level of hell until they all fall in ruins.
> 
> Repeating irrational behavior by turning to superstition for supernatural assistance  and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.



LOL... So the past doesn't matter now? Darwin would be LIVID! Again, civilizations which tried to rebuke spirituality have failed miserably. There is no example of a success. 

There is nothing "supernatural" or "superstitious" about spiritual nature, it is a part of nature and the universe, just like physical nature.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Considering that this is the only life that I *know* I get to experience, I'll take The Natural World and All its Wonders for all the marbles, Alex.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're free to opine about your alleged "spirit worlds" but you should be aware that making emphatic statements about the existence of these supernatural realms makes you appear really desperate.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Why?

We live in an age in which science has proven the existence of other universes, different forms of existence and forms of matter and energy that are not what we can see, or sense without tools to interpret them. In fact the tools don't sense them for us, but only measure other phenomena we theorize are related.

So why would a spiritual world be so desperate?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



lol, metaphysical bigotry for the win, Alex.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> There is nothing "supernatural" or "superstitious" about spiritual nature, it is a part of nature and the universe, just like physical nature.



... "because I say so."    <-------- you forgot that part.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> Again, "religious beliefs" only pertain to spirituality in the sense they are products of it. They are evidence that humans certainly have profound belief in spiritual nature. You want to look at the historic record, let's look at the attempts humans have made to try and live without spiritual belief? Every one of those empires declined into immoral decay and corruption, usually ending with millions of people dying. Civilizations without spirituality have ALWAYS failed. So some civilizations may have failed with it, but all have failed without it.



And a few examples of civilizations that have failed without spiritual belief would include?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, "religious beliefs" only pertain to spirituality in the sense they are products of it. They are evidence that humans certainly have profound belief in spiritual nature. You want to look at the historic record, let's look at the attempts humans have made to try and live without spiritual belief? Every one of those empires declined into immoral decay and corruption, usually ending with millions of people dying. Civilizations without spirituality have ALWAYS failed. So some civilizations may have failed with it, but all have failed without it.
> ...



Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist Cambodia, Jacobin France,.....

Just how many do you need to see?


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Those are hardly civilizations.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



lol, so now you are going to retreat to semantic quibbling?

so define what a civilization is to you


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



lol, so now you are going to backtrack because you weren't paying attention?

So, define for us why Nazi Germany somehow meets the definition of a civilization and why Christianity and the occult that played a part in Nazi ideology which, according to you, defines Nazi Germany as a civilization without "spirituality".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sure. Germany had a culture and set of values its citizens worked from that were distinct from the rest of Europe with the possible exception of fascist Italy. 

And Hitler, being the one who defined everything about Germany, was an atheist and freely acted on a completely anti-Christian set of values.

There was nothing remotely Christian about Hitler's behavior nor the civilization he gave birth to in the Third Reich.

That some Christian ministers cooperated with that vile beast is the surest proof of damnation for some of the Elect.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So, the inscription "gott mitt uns" on the belt buckles worn by the SS had nothing to do with christianity?

Do you want to spend a moment and take a crash course in Nazi ideology?


----------



## HUGGY (May 12, 2014)

Why is there such a desperate attempt to link atheism to Nazis?

The Nazis were clowns.  They were dangerous clowns for sure but all the "costumes" and the goose stepping and hiel Hitler with the arm raised and the exclusion of everyone that didn't fit their prototype was hardly anything an atheist would gravitate towards.

No atheist I ever met is looking for a "leader" or Fuhrer.  All the atheists I know reject groupthink.  

Attempting to link atheists to butcherers is a shabby argument.

There is 2000 years of history covering the butchery in the name of religion and it still goes on today.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 12, 2014)

And, why do the faithful have so little faith in their faith?

Yeah, its sounds convoluted but that's what these threads are always about. They have a very tenuous hold on their fairy tale so they're constantly arguing about it. 

To each their own but really, this just gets more and more brain dead every day.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Lol, and that Stalin used the Russian orthodox church as a motivating tool makes the Soviets Christian too  guess.

The Nazis cynically exploited Christian beliefs by the ignorant masses to motivate them to support the central state.

If you ant fathom how that negates any references to Got and anything else similar to the genuine faith then ntothing can remedy your ignorance.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 12, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> Why is there such a desperate attempt to link atheism to Nazis?
> 
> The Nazis were clowns.  They were dangerous clowns for sure but all the "costumes" and the goose stepping and hiel Hitler with the arm raised and the exclusion of everyone that didn't fit their prototype was hardly anything an atheist would gravitate towards.
> 
> No atheist I ever met is looking for a "leader" or Fuhrer.  All the atheists I know reject groupthink.



Except for atheist group think. I have never seen such stupidity and ignorance before in my life than what so many atheists use to defend their faith system.




HUGGY said:


> Attempting to link atheists to butcherers is a shabby argument.



Not at all. It is the natural outgrowth of their stupidity and lack of morality.




HUGGY said:


> There is 2000 years of history covering the butchery in the name of religion and it still goes on today.



And all of it pales in comparison to the last two centuries in which atheists have butchered literally hundreds of millions of people across the globe.


----------



## edthecynic (May 12, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Where do you get this crap!!!

My feelings* as a Christian* points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. 
In boundless love* as a Christian* and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. 
To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. 
*As a Christian* I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. 
For *as a Christian* I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe 
*I would be no Christian*, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.


----------



## HUGGY (May 13, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there such a desperate attempt to link atheism to Nazis?
> ...



Your post is ignorant.

You religists are so used to lying to each other and just making shit up out of whole cloth that you have become used to it.  You don't know the first thing about how an atheist thinks or acts.

Save your lying for your fellow perveyors of your fraud. 

The fact of the matter is that atheists are better people than you are.

You and your ilk are scum that prey on the suffering and frightened that have succumed to the scam of religion and the threatened vengence of your fake god. There is no god and all of the bluster you can muster won't make it so.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2014)

> The fact of the matter is that atheists are better people than you are.
> 
> There is no god and all of the bluster you can muster won't make it so.



Two statements you have absolutely NO proof for and can't support with evidence.

If you have no God you have no moral accountability. That means you can make up your own moral boundaries as you go, justifying whatever you please along the way. The most reprehensible monsters in human history either believed in no God or believed they were greater than God. The symptoms of moral relativism plague our country today, with one shockingly heinous act after another in complete disregard for life. You carry the banner for over 50 million aborted human lives in the name of your godless unaccountable lifestyle of convenience and vanity. And you have the fucking nerve to tell us you are better people? 

Regardless of the bluster you muster, there IS a God and you cannot make God disappear.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 13, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



By observing that what Hitler did in regards to slaughtering millions of Jews, Catholics, priests, gypsies, etc, is entirely 100% contrary to what Christ taught.

You libtard fools judge people by what they say when what they do is of far more significance.

Besides, one should never believe a politician, unless there is plenty of evidence to support what he says.  Hitler had the opposite and was a Christ hating atheist despite his lies claiming the opposite said before the cameras.

But why focus on Hitler? Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions of innocents just as well and you libtards don't even blink an eye.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 13, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Add up the number of people killed at the orders of atheists over the last 200 years and it dwarfs all the other Christian tyrants over two millennia; FACT.

The rest of your bullshit is just presumptuous blather.


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 13, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



 The metaphysical part I get... please define 'bigotry' as used in this context.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> > The fact of the matter is that atheists are better people than you are.
> >
> > There is no god and all of the bluster you can muster won't make it so.
> 
> ...



"If you have no God you have no moral accountability"

The mantra of the thumper.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I wouldn't feel hurt because your Christian tyrants aren't quite as ruthless as megalomaniacs who used a political ideology to further their goals. 

Remember, your Christian mass murderers had the gods on their side to assist in their killing.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> And, why do the faithful have so little faith in their faith?
> 
> Yeah, its sounds convoluted but that's what these threads are always about. They have a very tenuous hold on their fairy tale so they're constantly arguing about it.
> 
> To each their own but really, this just gets more and more brain dead every day.



It is curious. The more angry of those with "faith" will defend their hold on some perceived moral high ground with nonsensical claims about their roll call of dead bodies being less than that of psychopaths who fronted communist/socialist political ideologies.

When your claim to a moral high ground resolves to: "but..... but...... but we're not as bad as they are", it's time to drink the Kool-aid.


----------



## HUGGY (May 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> > The fact of the matter is that atheists are better people than you are.
> >
> > There is no god and all of the bluster you can muster won't make it so.
> 
> ...



I can understand at the time of jesus how people could say there is NO proof either way on the existance of a god.  In fact the rule of thumb at that  time was that there were many gods.  There were gods for everything.  Superstition was the way of the world.  Paring the entities down to a single lord and master just seemed to make sense.  It was also convenient in controlling human activity to claim access to this god ...a single pathway if you will to succeed in war.. life... politics.

As hard as the gatekeepers to power made it for knowledge to prove otherwise by publicly prosecuting Galileo and others it is astonishing that any knowledge was amassed at all that didn't agree with the bible's accounts of truth.

Success in war seemed to be the deciding factor that gave christianity the edge.

Now some 2000 years later technology has passed beyond the religist's ability to bury it.

Again it was the ability to make war that was the deciding factor.  

The birth of the most crude computer rested on the means to calculate the accuracy of cannon and later gun tragectories.  The radio was a means to signal over longer distances... radar and television.. more implements of war ... All of these improvements ...flying.. machining parts by mass repetition .. harnessing the electron.

One by one the mysteries once attributed to only what it would take a god to deliver have been produced by average men.

We have seen behind the curtain and there was no super human entity there pulling the strings and wires.

The magic has been strippped away.  Only the willfully ignorant are still at the bridges demanding a toll.  A few thousand black knights demanding recognition for the progress they never had any part of is all you bow down to.

The revolution of knowledge has been won and only the willfully ignorant still impede what progress they can.

The knashing of teeth is all happening in YOUR camp boys.  You have nothing but bad dreams to threaten with.  You have been reduced to warning humanity against the imaginary monsters under the bed and in the closet.

You are pathetic.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 27, 2014)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...




Your arguement is flawed by the beginning of the second graph,

"You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity."

For a spiritual being to manifest physical reality, it must be likewise have physical substance. Futher, if a spiritual being or realm even exists you'd have to be able to prove that empirically which you didn't. 

"Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love? "

Thoughts exist. They're small electrical impulses we can measure with an electroencephalagraph (EEG.) 

Without defining and quantifying a spiritual realm actually exists, 'spiritual evidence' doesn't exist either. Least not in any way so you can boast you have definitive proof of it existing. The Bible or any other book does not prove anything other than someone wrote it. The books "Twilight" and "Harry Potter" for example do not prove vampires or wizards exist. Nor does the Bible prove God exists or people can live to be 900. Remeber many people have since written books utilizing a deity. From the Book of Mormon to Scientology. Is the LDS church right about theirclaims because some book says so? Is the universe in fact trillions instead of billions of years old because Scientology says so?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 27, 2014)

Here's an example of what some seem to think qualifies as proof of God,

Coming into the R&E group just now, I glanced at the time, 3:16.  Further curiousity lies in 'John' being my given name, but not what I go by. 

John enters the Religion group at 3:16. ...Ok, a bit curious.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 27, 2014)

Boss said:


> We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> 
> You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?
> 
> ...



Weak.  Not one argument for god(s) existence doesn't come without some fatal flaw.  He talks to you?  Can't prove it.  He wrote the bible?  No he didn't.  

I thought this was going to be a good thread but it's just you again with your bullshit theories.  I guess if the evidence is good enough for you that's all that counts, right?  But science says BULLSHIT.  Atheists say BULLSHIT.  Even Agnostics need more proof or evidence.  

PS.  I use to believe in your generic god too.  Funny it doesn't bother you that every organized religion is completely made up.  That isn't proof to you that the entire premise is possibly made up too?  You should admit that you believe because you want to believe, not because you really believe.  You choose to believe despite the evidence or lack of evidence.  

Next time you create a thread with this title, have some fucking proof please.  This is just the same bullshit in your "why do god haters persist thread"


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...



Kants dichotomy is false; the spiritual and the material often intersect and the noumenal and phenominal have shared objects.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 27, 2014)

Proof of god? This should be good...


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 27, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Proof of god? This should be good...




you did not notice the thread was over a year old and you were the 4,045 th post ?

Boss deserves a medal for longevity and keeping a subject interesting ....


* Billy, I notice the green bar under your name is half used up - what happens when it reaches the other side - seriously does anyone know (what it means) ?

.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > Proof of god? This should be good...
> ...



It means the internet finally shits him out with a huge grunt.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 27, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...





well Jim, it looks like yours is a little lit as well ... 

.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > Proof of god? This should be good...
> ...


The thread was never interesting. It was little more than Boss claiming he has communications with the spirit world.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The thread was never interesting. It was little more than Boss claiming he has communications with the spirit world.



Ya, 4k posts suggest no interest at all.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 28, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > Proof of god? This should be good...
> ...


I dunno, but I see that yours is full, I can guess what that means.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 28, 2014)

So after 4k posts, what was the best proof of god? Does anyone remember? Anything better than Bossy proclaiming that god is like electricity? Any solid proof? Anything?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Kants dichotomy is false; the spiritual and the material often intersect and the noumenal and phenominal have shared objects.



Didn't know it was a thing, but would say it isn't false. If you can't prove something exists, it doesn't 'intersect' with something you can prove exists.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

BillyP said:


> So after 4k posts, what was the best proof of god? Does anyone remember? Anything better than Bossy proclaiming that god is like electricity? Any solid proof? Anything?



This thread is how everyone should learn about god.  Don't brainwash kids when they are babies.  I think we can teach kids right and wrong without lying to them, although how many parents have used the santa naughty/nice story on their 3 year olds?  Probably a lot.  So maybe a little white lie to a kid is something that parents do?  Anyways, eventually anyone who has questions should come here and read both sides and maybe even weigh in, ask questions, etc.  And we see clearly some people will believe after they've thought it out no matter what like Boss, some will completely believe the Jesus cult, some might go jew or muslim and some might decide like I finally did to go agnostic atheist.  I don't know for sure but I'm fairly certain the man stories of god are not real.  No miracles done 2000 years ago.  Sorry.  

I can't imagine anyone going Jew or Muslim.  I am amazed that people can be feared/bullshitted into Christianity but at least I get the angle.  I don't see the other two's appeal.  The Jews actually aren't looking for new members.  They don't recruit.  But what is the appeal of going Muslim.  Can anyone answer that?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 28, 2014)

Why does this thread and this argument continue?

There is absolutely no doubt that god does exist - in the minds of those who need for him to exist. 

That's really all that matters.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why does this thread and this argument continue?
> 
> There is absolutely no doubt that god does exist - in the minds of those who need for him to exist.
> 
> That's really all that matters.



Who was that lady who killed her kids because Satan was in them?  

Do you think humans need a lie or a fairy tale to be happy or good?  I don't.  I think god is used on people who aren't happy.  Sure god gives them comfort but sometimes he also gives them a lot of guilt.  And which god(s)?  If you were born into the Westboro Baptists clan you'd be preaching at soldiers funerals hollerin about gays.  

I know religion(s) do a lot of good too but they sure do a hell of a lot of bad.  Couple examples.  

a.  Prisons are filled with Theists.
b.  The Muslims are all god fearing people.

Look what the Pakistani Muslims in Ireland did to 1400 kids.

Sexual Abuse of 1400 Children Unreported Due to Racism Fears mdash Infowars Ireland


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

Christians, Muslims and Jews.  Think about this.  Lets say your daughter is depressed and you've raised her but at 18 she meets a cult leader and he takes her in and she is happy being one of his wives.  

This makes her happy.  Do you tell her she's following a lie or do you let it go because she's happy?

Any of you.  If your kid wants to switch from Christian to Muslim or Jew to Christian, are you going to argue with them or let them follow their own "truth".  We all know you are going to passionately explain to them why that religion is bullshit.  So we are all atheists.  You all just believe in one more god than I do.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 28, 2014)

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

After all, if you know anything about matter and existence, it is that everything is in motion.  Even the vibration of the sub-particles of atoms.

Yet, we also know that an object, unless acted upon by an outside force will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing.  No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Why does this thread and this argument continue?
> ...



I believe its a shared delusion. 

But I also believe that, for the most part, its harmless and it helps people deal with their problems. 

To each their own.

How many hundreds of thousands of catholic children have been raped throughout the history of that church?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.
> 
> everything is in motion.
> 
> ...



What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing.  There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.  At least that is the theory.  And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.  So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang?  Theists said the universe was always here.  Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though.  What does any of that prove?  The answer is nothing.  We don't know.  So keep looking.  To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.
> ...


Actually, it doesn't mean any of that.  Stuff floating around?  Perhaps you didn't understand.

Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence.  Since we are talking about the Universe, what could possibly be an outside influence?

Have you ever seen the experiment of mouse traps and ping-pong balls?


The theory is called, "First Mover" and philosophers have been puzzling over it for centuries. Some for, some against.

Me, I don't care what they or anyone says.  It is logical and scientific.

Something (A deity perhaps?) moved the very first object and set the whole thing in motion.  To what purpose is a matter for deep debate and not to be had on this forum.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Maybe it all came out of the other end of a black hole.  We don't have all the answers yet.  Best to say we don't know and to keep looking. 

Are you suggesting what you are telling me proves there is a god out there that made us and cares about you and you have a soul that will go to heaven?

Does what you are showing me prove a god(s) exist?


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  I do subscribe to the first mover theory of creationism and I DO believe in a God.  

What I am telling you is some of the thoughts I employ when I ponder the question and why I think that a God exists.

My proof, and yours, will come when your physical life comes to an end.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 28, 2014)

BillyP said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...




I have no idea is why I asked - your rating for no. of posts seems higher than most so what is with the green line ?




> *BillyP*: So after 4k posts, what was the best proof of god? Does anyone remember?  Anything better than Bossy proclaiming that god is like electricity? Any solid proof? Anything?



*
... proclaiming that god is like electricity?*

that in itself is progress for a rational discussion for life's existence and meaning in an otherwise barren universe.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Ok, but just know that all the scientific stuff you ponder and don't know why or how doesn't point to a god that created us.  It really doesn't.

You sound like my dad and all other uneducated theists.  No offense to him or them but they always say, "how can this have all come from nothing?" or "There has to be a creator".  Just realize that this is the real thinking behind god.  You guys believe because you can't believe there isn't.  That's the best you got.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Ok, but just know that all the scientific stuff you ponder and don't know why or how doesn't point to a god that created us.  It really doesn't.
> 
> You sound like my dad and all other uneducated theists.  No offense to him or them but they always say, "how can this have all come from nothing?" or "There has to be a creator".  Just realize that this is the real thinking behind god.  You guys believe because you can't believe there isn't.  That's the best you got.



This is nothing but YOUR opinion.  Not one based on any proof, btw.  To assume I know nothing of science is an error on your part, but I don't really think that any amount of discussion would alter your closed mind.

I'm expressing My views, and these are the views by which I try to make sense of life, particularly Mine.

The fact that you bring your Dad into this and disagree with his views leads Me to believe that you're pretty young.

Get back to Me in about 40 years when your son(s) tell you what you believe is just so much bullshit.

Until then, have a nice day.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but just know that all the scientific stuff you ponder and don't know why or how doesn't point to a god that created us.  It really doesn't.
> ...



1.  I need to prove your imaginary friend isn't real?
2. i don't think I suggested you know nothing about science.  You clearly know more than me.  I'm just telling you in advance none of your hypothesis' point to a god.  That's probably just wishful thinking.  Think about it.  Is he hiding from you?  If you don't believe the bible stories then god has never talked to anyone.  If they lied/made it up, maybe the entire concept is made up.  Sure seems that way.
3.  I am 43.  My dad admits organized religions are all made up but he "just can't believe there is no god".  He says the world is too perfect.  How did all this happen?  There must be a god!!!  Sorry dad, there doesn't have to be.

If something HAD TO make us, something HAD TO make god.  You can't have that argument both ways.  How come god can have no creator but we have to?


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 28, 2014)

Hi @Delta4Embassy
Sorry I am still not used to this new format.
Can I reply this way?

You ask about not assuming spirituality exists without some physical proof so there is common reference.

What about substituting the concept of
* collective truth
* collective or cumulative reality
* collective humanity or society

Do you believe in a "collective" level of things that go beyond just what is in our direct immediate
physical present empirical perception and experience?

Whatever is meant by "spiritual" can be substituted by talking about a "collective level"
And this can vary for different people. But at least it is a common frame of reference.

Are you okay with that? With refering to something on a "collective scale" that relies on faith?



Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 28, 2014)

Dear @sealybobo 
1. I agree there does not necessarily NEED to be a God/creator especially if this will always remain faith based and cannot be proven empirically. The most we could attain is everyone assuming believing and agreeing on the same thing, which is still faith based and will only be gotten by free choice and cannot be forced or assumed based on false logic because the human conscience does not work that way.

2. By the same token that all things could just exist without any creator, it could go either way. 
So the main thing I see people objecting to is either
* ASSUMING it HAS to be a from a source/creator and REJECTING or insulting/attacking others who don't share this view
* ASSUMING there CANNOT be one because it makes no sense, so rejecting or assuming something is wrong/negative with those who believe there is one

That is usually what causes people to cling to a view or insult/attack others of different approaches.

As long as you stay away from that, there is no issue really. The same ideas and arguments/statements can be expressed and shared WITHOUT depending on either there is or there is not a God/Source.

What messes people up is depending that one person has to be right and another group has to be wrong.

If we stay unconditional we are less likely to make mistakes in judgment/perception and are more open to corrections that we exchange equally. Both views are supposed to be there, so that we balance and check each other. When we get over that, we can better help each other by using our differences as strengths not weaknesses.



sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Lit, hell yeah, I am sharing the light of TRUTH at every opportunity; glad to help, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.
> ...



No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.



sealybobo said:


> And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.



The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.




sealybobo said:


> So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang?  Theists said the universe was always here.  Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.



Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?



sealybobo said:


> Lets say you are right though.  What does any of that prove?  The answer is nothing.  We don't know.  So keep looking.  To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?



We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Kants dichotomy is false; the spiritual and the material often intersect and the noumenal and phenominal have shared objects.
> ...



Kants dichotomy states that the noumenal CANNOT eve be perceived directly. But put this into a dynamic frame of reference and look at how some things can be perceived today that we could not perceive say 500 years ago.

In 1500, before Kant's time, were we to tell a Prussian scientist that there was light that could not be seen he would laugh at you and maybe even suggest you were speaking of 'heavenly light' since it is unseeable light. In Kants day things would not be much better and if you had asked him about this rumored form of light, he might well have said it was noumenal if no one had seen it in two centuries and more.

And yet we now know that there is nothing special or magical about light outside the visible spectrum.

What was unperceivable in Kants time has become seeable in our time through the use of instrumentation.

And thus why there is no valid noumenal category, because for those of faith EVERYTHING in the Heavens and Earth will one day become perceivable. So to accept Kants dichotomy is to tacitly reject a Judeo-Christian view of the cosmos.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 29, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 29, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.
> 
> Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



As I recently pointed out to someone else (whom I'll spare from mentioning again being a dumbass we should pity, not mock) your information is out of date,

Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang An Interview with Physicist Gabriele Veneziano Critical Opalescence Scientific American Blog Network

April 2014

Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang: An Interview with Physicist Gabriele Veneziano


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 29, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.
> ...



Meh, they are playing semantic games.



> The term “big bang” really refers to the *beginning of the universe as we know it*—that is, an expanding universe filled with matter that has cooled and coagulated into galaxies. *Cosmic inflation, the process the BICEP2 results appear to have vindicated, occurred before the big bang by this definition*. The universe during inflation was a deeply alien place, devoid of matter, governed by primeval ur-forces, and thoroughly quantum.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Aug 29, 2014)

editec said:


> Circular logic is circular.


Nobody lkes a smartass.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 29, 2014)

What is this malarkey about " God haters"? Even the darkest most nihilistic aethishist wants proof of God's existence. But  then, there are gullible sheep that  drink the kool aid and believe anything. Rape little boys or  crash planes into buildings. I don't think there  any sides on this  issue, either you question things or you  are gullible. God help us ALL.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



When science discovered when the big bang happened, it contradicted religion.  I saw the whole story on public tv.  Stephen Hawkins that guy in the wheelchair


JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



What is your theory about before the big bang?  Just curious.

I just remember watching a piece on Stephen Hawking and his theory went against the church's belief and so he said his theory concluded that 

Heaven is a ‘fairy story  for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.

As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.

His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.

Professor Hawking’s latest remarks came in an interview in which the theoretical physicist told how he had learnt to live in the shadow of death since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21.

The disease, which is incurable, was expected to kill him within  a few years. Instead, he said, it  ultimately led him to enjoy  life more. 

The 69-year-old Cambridge University academic said: ‘I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. 

‘I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.

‘I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. 

‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-story-people-afraid-dark.html#ixzz3Bslz2VRo 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Meh, they are playing semantic games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Yes, something did move the first object.  Until we know what, the best answer is to say we don't know and keep looking.  

We don't know everything there is to know about black holes and alternate universes.  Stay tuned.  To say god did it and just go back to playing candy crush is just ignorant.  
I
It is amazing though.  They think life is in those meteors that orbit our sun at the edge of our solar system.  Amino acids are  in the ice.  And like everything else they were flying in order and one day something hit them and they went off like those ping pong balls and they flew in every direction hitting every planet in our solar system.  Mars is covered with them.  But mars is either too far or close to the sun so life can't live there.  Not anymore.  They think life either does live on mars or once did and they are proving it.  Methane comes out of Mars so there is a chance deep inside life may exist.

Long story short, what caused the meteors to fly out of control and land on earth and start life?  I can see why people believe in a creator but there is no proof and logically if we had to have a creator, who created the creator?  Can't have that argument both ways.  

Why can you imagine a god that has no beginning, end or creator but you can't imagine the universe that way?  Fascinating.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, they are playing semantic games.
> ...



I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> When science discovered when the big bang happened, it contradicted religion.


not all religions.....it didn't contradict Christianity, for example.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


and it was explained to you many times......for some reason you ignore that and keep asking the same stupid question.....that which is eternal has no beginning.....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Our universe didn't need any divine help.  Stephen Hawkingnoted that many people still seek a divinesolutionto counter the theories of curious physicists.  What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?  After outlining the historical theological debate about how the universe was created, Hawking gave amore scientific cosmological explanation, including the steady-state theory. This idea hypothesizes that there is no beginning and no end and that galaxies continue to form from spontaneously created matter.  After giving a brief historical background on relativistic physics and cosmology, Hawking discussed the idea of a repeating Big Bang….therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once. The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme. 

Hawking noted that in the 1980s, around the time he released a paper discussing the moment the universe was born, Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.  “I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked.  He closed by outlining "M-theory,".  M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


"Our universe didn't need any divine help."
it obviously needed some form of cause......

"What was God doing before the divine creation?"
who knows....maybe he was taking a break after his last created universe was finished.....maybe he has a half dozen going at once.....

".therefore, time began at the moment of singularity".....I agree.....when God created day and night on the first "day"  he wasn't creating anything physical.....he was creating time....that which truly distinguishes night and day.....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Smart scientists who study this stuff don't see any proof of a god nor do they have faith there is one without proof.  

But I understand where you are coming from.  My dad agrees with you.  There must be a creator.  Why?  Because there just must be!!!  Anyone who says differently is stupid.

Unfortunately his argument is not sound.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....



The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Smart people who know this and still believe believe because they want to believe.  Even they would have to admit that there is no proof.

Just look at who we take seriously on USMB.  Do we take anyone who takes the bible literally seriously?  No.  We blow them off as nuts.  So the only people who we even debate with here are people who have philosophical reasons for believing in god(s).  

Because we can't prove there is no god, that is why they have FAITH.  Because they were brainwashed with fear and hell.  Because they want to believe, no other reason.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....



Because they are able to put all the bullshit aside and think rationally about this.  They even understand what part of the brain invents/believes in god(s) and how our primitive and ancient ancestors were superstitious and had a healthy fear of the unknown so they came up with a super parent.  Then the rulers used god to control the masses and have been doing so ever since.

_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, they are playing semantic games.
> ...



Of course, do whatever you like, but this guys definition of the Big Bang 1) you found ONE SCIENTIST who contradicts the definition of the original theory which goes back to T0, and 2) he is a minority view. Wikipedia is good for that at least in that it shows what the main stream status quoi opinion is on any topic, including this one. OF course that doesn't mean they are right, but this guy just wants to redefine a word already in widespread use. Maybe instead of redefining the Big Bang he should make up a new word like Normality Inception.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.



Gullibility like the pounds of salt required to take that horse shit you just posted seriously?

What you are a psychologist authority on gullibility now? yeah, right, whenever it suits your point.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



What I recognize is that organized religions have zero authority or credibility because they argue/deny common sense.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 30, 2014)

> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> ...




*Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence ... Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration.*


there seems to be a bias for the physical, matter over energy, attraction without consideration of their duality present at all times that is the basis for the Universe.

what matter exists so also does energy and the subcomponents of attraction and repulsion - the idea of a universe existing without the duality is without foundation. matter and energy composes singularity as opposite pols - the Big Bang as singularity of matter that at the moment of the Bang is the polar expulsion of Energy. -

as turning points both exist together at their most extreme conditions as states of momentary purity and Spiritual supremacy.

the attraction - repulsion of energy (gravity) is what causes motion in matter. - singularity is the only moment without motion.


that is the basis in Life for the forces of Good vs Evil.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

BreezeWood said:


> > sealybobo said:
> >
> >
> > > Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> ...



It is?  Should I just take your word for it or do you have a link to someone else who agrees with you?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....
> ...


so in essence, the test of whether someone is "smart" is whether or not they agree with what you've chosen to believe....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.


so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



No.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> ...



Is that true that inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical?

Can you provide a link from a scientist that confirms what you just said?  I don't know if you are right or wrong on that one.  And what do the scientists say about that?  Do they say this proves a god exists or are you just trying to prove that everything we see was created by something non physical?  

What about a rip in our solar system?  Where do black holes end?  Maybe the stuff our universe came from came out of the back end of a black hole?  I don't know.  Do you?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> ...



You may be right.  

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Dude that is how it is with all leftists; havent you been paying attention?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Lol, you are an idiot, your own article points out;
"We can no longer ignore the fact that our beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (consciousness) create the world.
Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."

So whoever Created the universe and observed the Big Bang is God, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You libtards only appeal to 'common sense' when you think it helps you to support your lies.

Common sense says that there is a Creator and that intelligence is required for the easily observed design in the universe.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


obviously its true.....if the cause is physical then the inception of things which are physical has already occurred.....

only something which is not physical can pre-exist the inception of things which are physical......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



nothing "proves" that God exists, nor am I attempting to prove it.....my goal is simply to prove that your claims about science are wrong......


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Inarguable?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Which claims?  I make a lot of them.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


concentrate on the ones I'm currently arguing with......


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



The spot 2 feet in front of your nose has always been there.  There may not have been a wall in the background, a planet, a sun to shine on that spot, etc.  

But the spot 2 feet in front of you was there 2 billion, 2 trillion, and even infinity years ago.  It may have been just a point in dead empty black space, but it was there and will be there in 2 trillion years even in Infinity years.  

So is that spot 2 feet in front of your face god?

And since you are going to heaven for eternity, are you a god?  Fucking idiots.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 30, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


no, there was no "dead empty black space" an infinity of years ago....space is a part of our physical universe.....it can be observed, measured, studied scientifically.......


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Hey, dumbass, a spot two feet in front of you cannot be an 'eternal' object. You apparently have no clue what the fucking word 'eternal' means. So trying to discuss the subject with you is like shooting fish in a barrel as you display your ignorance to the world.

I am total fine with continuing to give you  these opportunities for the sake of lurkers, as your are the epitome of an ignorant, witless atheist who makes claims that he knows nothing about.

Oh, and now is where you tell me that you are not an atheist?

roflmao


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 31, 2014)

Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)

Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


1a) because the eternal being that Christianity stole from Judaism and earlier came from Canaanite polytheism is an invention of mankind deriving from all the tales, fables and superstitions that preceded your version of an eternal being.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)
> 
> Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.


Substitute "_the Easter Bunny"_ for the term "god".


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Substitute "_the Easter Bunny"_ for the term "god".



Ever hear of somebody killing somebody else over whether the Easter Bunny was a white bunny or a black bunny?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Substitute "_the Easter Bunny"_ for the term "god".
> ...


"Neupe". But I have heard of religionists killing other religionists because they were the _wrong kind_ of religionist.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 31, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)
> 
> Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.



No, you cant infer that because fringe groups simply ignore facts and reason to cling to their fringe beliefs. That is why they are fringe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And we have all heard of the Death Camps and Killing Fields that atheists have sent countless millions of people to just *because*.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)
> ...



Yeah, that's like substituting the word 'egg' for 'Hollie's Brain'....yeah, actually that works.

Substituting apples for apples works, and 'Easter bunny' does not equal 'the Creator' you stupid fucktard.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


1a) Christianity is a form of Judaism, bitch, so nothing was stolen. Good grief pick up a fucking book sometime.
1b) Seriously, take a critical thinking class, as you barely register on the 'thunk scale'.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Lovely folks, you angry, fundie cranks.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Lovely folks, you angry, fundie cranks.



Maybe you and Hollie have a history I'm unaware of Jim, but based just on this thread, that was really angry, hostile, and out of line.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 2, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You are so cute.  You and your invisible man who watches you jack off and you feel guilty about it later.  Sad but cute.  

Eternal object?  Give me an example of an eternal object?

Do you think you are smart and I am dumb?  Did I say something that made you think you are smart and I am dumb?  What was it?  Something about an eternal object?  

Boy you got me good, NOT.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



They will ignore these facts and then call you and I stupid for doubting or not believing?  Fucking idiots.  

Hope you had a nice long weekend.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear the God-haters chortle... *you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.* I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.
> ...



There is no flaw, you are factually incorrect in your assessment. Something does not have to possess "physical substance" in order to manifest a physical reality. Love would be the most obvious example of this. As for "empirical proof" ...I challenge you to "empirically prove" anything. You see, this is a very difficult criteria to meet because most everything can be questioned. When I say "definitive proof" it means the proof is definitely proof.  Epirical? That's a different matter, even reality itself is not empirical. 



> "Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love? "
> 
> Thoughts exist. They're small electrical impulses we can measure with an electroencephalagraph (EEG.)



No, I am sorry, a small electrical impulse is not a thought. It may be something that happens in the event of a thought, it may indicate that a thought is happening, but the electrical impulse itself, is not a thought. The same is true for chemical reactions associated with love. Incidentally, the same chemical reactions and electrical impulses happen when a human is experiencing spiritual connection. 



> Without defining and quantifying a spiritual realm actually exists, 'spiritual evidence' doesn't exist either. Least not in any way so you can boast you have definitive proof of it existing. The Bible or any other book does not prove anything other than someone wrote it. The books "Twilight" and "Harry Potter" for example do not prove vampires or wizards exist. Nor does the Bible prove God exists or people can live to be 900. Remeber many people have since written books utilizing a deity. From the Book of Mormon to Scientology. Is the LDS church right about theirclaims because some book says so? Is the universe in fact trillions instead of billions of years old because Scientology says so?



Things do not have to be quantified or defined in order to exist. I have previously presented the "Jupiter example" to demonstrate this. Did the planet Jupiter exist before astronomers discovered it? Of course, it did, for billions of years. The fact that we hadn't quantified or defined it, did not mean it wasn't in existence. 

The Bible is not at issue here. My argument does not claim God is proven to exist because The Bible says so. I've also not argued that an existing God must be a deity or conform to any religious incarnation. This was not presented as part of my argument, yet you want to interject them here and refute an argument that wasn't made. 

The most logical proof for God is Time. Time exists as a dimension of a physical universe. However, when we examine Time itself, it is only a perception we retain as humans existing in a physical universe. Time only exists in reality through our perception of the present. In other words, there is no existence of physical past or future time. We have evidence that past time existed as present, at one time. But the past time no longer exists. The future time may exist as present time, at some point, it doesn't presently exist. The time in which I began typing this paragraph, no longer exists, it is part of time passed. The time in which I type the next paragraph is not here yet, it doesn't yet exist. 

Now, the time has arrived for me to type the next paragraph, but before I can finish the first word, that time has passed. Already, you are reading evidence of time which has passed and no longer exists. That time will never exist again, and no one knows what future time may exist. Our only perception of time is the very instant of present time.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> What does all this prove?
> 
> There wasn't nothing.  There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.  At least that is the theory.  And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.  So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang?  Theists said the universe was always here.  Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.
> 
> Lets say you are right though.  What does any of that prove?  The answer is nothing.  We don't know.  So keep looking.  To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?



*There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.*

I've seen this theory presented repeatedly, although I've never seen evidence to support the theory. In any event, even the most enthusiastic supporter of the theory must contemplate, what made this happen? I assume you understand Newton's Laws of Motion... so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction? 

Now you need to be corrected and schooled on this theory in general. There is no proof the Big Bang ever happened, it is only a theory. The greatest evidence for the theory is the motion of the universe. If the universe is expanding, physics and logic say that if Newton's Laws of Motion are valid, then some force began this motion at some point in time. However... and this is a big deal... we've recently discovered the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. This is totally contradictory to a theory of a Big Bang because that's not what should be happening. In any energy event like a Big Bang, the velocity of matter should decrease with time because of friction... again, Newtonian Laws of physics. This has caused physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question earlier theories of a Big Bang. It has prompted the creation of a new form of math, quantum physics. The more we think we know, the more we find out how little we actually know.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What does all this prove?
> ...



It MAY have come out of a black hole.  A rip between 2 universes?  I don't know.  Do you?  

We don't know why the universe is expanding faster and faster.  They use to think it was going to come back.  Now???  Do you know?  

Yes it did get him to question his theories.  That's what science does.  Theists don't.  You are a half breed theist much like you are probably a half breed indian.  I get it.  

You are right about the more we know.  But what we never get any closer to is that a god exists.  In fact, we don't even consider a god when we contemplate but I'll tell you what we will do for you is keep an eye out for him and let you know if we find him.  Until then, we see no god(s) out there.  

What is your theory?  A creature not bound by the laws of physics and the physical world did it all?  And he loves you?  Chances are if something made us, it doesn't even know you are alive.  You're like a Tardigrade to me.  

So actually, I can entertain your idea of a creator.  But please don't tell me you talk to him and he cares for you. 

See, this is why I call you a half breed, just like your injun ancestory.  You don't believe the organized religions, have your own theories on why something must have created, but like those organized religions, you too think this god cares for you and helps you?  Talk about wanting to have it both ways...  But I commend you on at least admitting organized religions are not necessary and they are wrong when they say believe them or burn in hell.  

But then you believe in heaven?  Do you?  Oh yea, you don't believe in "heaven" persay but some sort of non physical blablabla where your soul lives on.  But a fish doesn't get to go to heaven.  Funny a lot of what you believe comes from the bible.  You are a bastard of christianity.  LOL


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Even IF a black hole event or "rip" happened, you'd think the laws of physics would still apply. And yes, they USED to think... now they think something else... in the future, they may think something entirely different than what they now think... they don't stubbornly cling to the expanding/contracting universe theory like a bunch of doofuses. 

And no, I don't know, but I am not the one claiming that we know things because the Big Bang happened... that is YOU who is saying this. I'm saying we don't KNOW the Big Bang ever happened, and there are plenty of unanswered questions about the universe and how it began. 

One of the things you keep asking that perplexes me, is "what happened years before?" As if time somehow existed before the universe in which time is a dimension. It's like seeing a 2015 Cadillac on the highway and pondering where all it travelled during the American Revolution. You don't seem to understand that time didn't exist until the universe existed to enable it. That concept seems to completely fly over your head. 



> Yes it did get him to question his theories.  That's what science does.  Theists don't.  You are a half breed theist much like you are probably a half breed indian.  I get it.



Well, I am multi-breed, but that is beside the point here. Science is the practice of continuously examining questions. It does not draw conclusions, it can't. Once a conclusion has been reached, science is done, it can do no more. Science cannot explore or evaluate whenever the answers have all been concluded. Man is who assumes conclusions, often to the chagrin of science. Once man has determined a conclusion, whether from science or elsewhere, it becomes a matter of FAITH. Now, that faith may be well-rooted in clear scientific evidence, but it's still faith. 



> You are right about the more we know.  But what we never get any closer to is that a god exists.  In fact, we don't even consider a god when we contemplate but I'll tell you what we will do for you is keep an eye out for him and let you know if we find him.  Until then, we see no god(s) out there.



Again, I disagree. The newest, most modern and forward-thinking science is that of quantum physics or quantum mechanics. This is the current pinnacle of science understood by mankind. In quantum theory is the contemplation of multiple universes and dimensions, in which our typical laws of physics may simply not apply. This clearly makes a "spiritual reality" more of a real possibility than ever before. 

When we observe the advanced scientific work being done at the large hadron colliders, we see some amazing shit. Atoms... those tiny things that make up all matter, when busted open, contain all sorts of mystical elements... particles... subatomic level bits that give material things their various properties. Each and every atom contains a nucleus and orbiting electron or electrons, and these electrons behave in ways that appear to defy known physics. We hear atheists chortle about "invisible sky daddy" but every atom of every material thing contains electrons which completely disappear and reappear in different places, or appear in the same place at the same time. 



> What is your theory?  A creature not bound by the laws of physics and the physical world did it all?  And he loves you?  Chances are if something made us, it doesn't even know you are alive.  You're like a Tardigrade to me.



Again, you are trying to morph my beliefs into a religious theological argument you can mock and poke fun at. All I've said with regard to the universe is the obvious, something happened. Now, something happening doesn't "prove" anything but the fact that something happened means that something logically caused it to happen because nothing happens just because. Again... Newton's Laws of Motion say, for every action, there is an equal reaction. I'm simply deducing the logical obvious from what we know of science and physics here. You are the one who seems to not have an answer and cling to some fantasy notion of a universe which just up and one day decided to create itself from nothingness.... defying ALL we know about physics in the process. 



> So actually, I can entertain your idea of a creator.  But please don't tell me you talk to him and he cares for you.



Well I've repeatedly corrected you on this notion that God "cares for you" and you just keep insisting it's what I believe. I do communicate with spiritual energy and I gain enormous blessings and benefits from doing so. I can highly recommend it to anyone who wants to give it a whirl, it does work. Now, I don't know about God as a "him" or if God "cares or loves" you. Some people do believe this, but it's part of their religious incarnations of God, which I don't have a problem with. I'm not going to say they are wrong, they may be absolutely correct and I could be wrong. 



> See, this is why I call you a half breed, just like your injun ancestory.  You don't believe the organized religions, have your own theories on why something must have created, but like those organized religions, you too think this god cares for you and helps you?  Talk about wanting to have it both ways...  But I commend you on at least admitting organized religions are not necessary and they are wrong when they say believe them or burn in hell.



Again... I never said they weren't necessary or they were wrong. You keep wanting to juxtapose my beliefs with what you think I should believe, or what your atheist buddies have trained you to argue against. I don't get that... how many times do we have to go through this? I don't know what you mean by "have it both ways" here, I have not tried to have anything but one way. You are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth... we don't know, but yes... we do know! You just continually run from one to the other, contradicting yourself like some kind of clueless idiot. 



> But then you believe in heaven?  Do you?  Oh yea, you don't believe in "heaven" persay but some sort of non physical blablabla where your soul lives on.  But a fish doesn't get to go to heaven.  Funny a lot of what you believe comes from the bible.  You are a bastard of christianity.  LOL



I've already covered what I personally believe, along with the caveat that I don't know for certain what lies on the "other side" after physical existence is over. I've never said anything about "what gets to go to heaven" in any of my commentary. Where does this come from? Why do you constantly try to force my beliefs into religious theological concepts? I can only assume it's because this is how the atheists have trained you to think and react to God. 

Let's go back a few paragraphs to science and the recent advent of quantum physics... if multiple universes and dimensions can exist, why can't a universe or dimension exist that we would consider, for all intents and purposes, that of a heaven or hell? Where an "intelligent designer" might reside? A place where our spiritual presence goes once our existence in a physical parameter of time/space has expired? I see no reason to discount or dismiss that possibility.


----------



## BillyP (Sep 10, 2014)

So, after all the mumbo jumbo has died down, did anyone ever present some real proof of god?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Science observes the _physical universe_, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

_“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2014)

BillyP said:


> So, after all the mumbo jumbo has died down, did anyone ever present some real proof of god?



No.  BUT, I have a theory.  God fucked a black hole and his seed is what made us.  He blew his wad and that was the big bang.  He did it in a black hole so no one would know.  He calls them glory holes.  Feels like sex to a god but would rip your dick off.  So his seed floated around until it all came together and the big bang happened.  Trillions of years and his semen floated around and one day the part of his semen that holds life floated around in our meteor belt and one day something flew into the meteor belt and his spunk went all over the place landing on Earth, Mars and every other planet.  We just happen to be in the goldilox zone.  Not too far or too close to the sun.  But his junk is on every planet.

NASA - NASA and University Researchers Find a Clue to How Life Turned Left

In 2000 a large meteoroid exploded in the atmosphere over northern British Columbia, Canada, and rained fragments across the frozen surface of Tagish Lake. pieces were collected within days and kept preserved in their frozen state. They continue to reveal more secrets about the early Solar System the more we investigate it," said Dr. Christopher Herd of the University of Alberta.  The latest study gives us a glimpse into the role that water percolating through asteroids must have played in making the left-handed amino acids that are so characteristic of all life on Earth."


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2014)

It'd be like if I came in a tissue, flushed it down the toilet and then 9 months later found out there are some mutant rat boys living in the sewer that look a lot like me.  Our god hopes all the other gods don't find out about us.  Maybe that's why he never visits.  He's a deadbeat dad.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Science observes the _physical universe_, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way...



Science does observe. explore and evaluate the known physical universe and beyond. It does make models, predictions of probability, develops theories, posits concepts, ponders possibility. Those are the amazing and fascinating things about Science. Of the things you currently call "natural phenomena" you can explain very little to anyone as to why it happens. The best you can do is explain how the process works, how it happens. 

Human spiritual connection most certainly DOES interact with the physical universe. This should be obvious to anyone who is not a monkey. Light, motion, sound, heat, mass and gravity... ALL involve atoms. At the atomic and subatomic levels, God's Miracle is proven. We learn that the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is, as Einstein puts it, a persistent illusion. You can't explain why, no matter how much you explain how.



> Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.



And that's why I reject the notion of "Supernatural" gods. There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable. 



> Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.



Well now you're running back to the parmeters of physical sciences which we've already determined cannot apply. Why are you going there? Anything that cannot be proven false is very much possible... in fact, many things we have thought to be proven impossible have turned out to be actually very possible. Many times, we have thought something to be proven impossible, only to discover that is not the case. If you admit that you can't prove God impossible, then by default, we must assume that God is possible. There can be no other logic to apply here. 



> Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> _“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin



And if all you were doing in this thread were coming here to say that you don't know, you're not sure, you honestly believe that a God may or may not exist and you're just not certain... that would be Fine and Dandy, Peaches and Cream! Where you're getting blowback is from you making these statements of ambiguity, not being sure, not knowing... then before you can type another idiotic paragraph, you've suddenly become bold enough to claim science has all but disproved God. Science, which we all agree, cannot evaluate or examine God, also cannot "disprove" God. You want to ignore that and make claims which are not true.

Faith is not denial of observation, and the idiot who said that is more stupid than you. Faith is belief in something not in evidence. It can apply to science... you do have faith that effects of gravity will behave the same in a future time space yet to happen in reality. We do have faith that 1+1=2 will be the same tomorrow. Humans have had faith in a power greater than self for all of our existence.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2014)

BillyP said:


> So, after all the mumbo jumbo has died down, did anyone ever present some real proof of god?



You should read the OP.... nothing has been refuted from there. Sooo.....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Science observes the _physical universe_, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way...
> ...



Is this a fact?  "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

And I don't think this is a fact:  "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this?  Who's we?  Does science know this?


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Is this a fact?  "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."



It's a famous quote from Einstein. I am simply repeating what a brilliant scientist once said. It IS a fact that electrons disappear, reappear and can exist in two places at the same time. Odd characteristics for something of the physical universe, but it's the truth. 



> And I don't think this is a fact:  "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.
> 
> We know this?  Who's we?  Does science know this?



Yes, we know this. Science knows this. There is nothing supernatural about human spirituality and you've never offered anything to prove that case. You may say spirituality involves the metaphysical, but metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural. So each and every time you make this statement it is erroneous and without support. It defies what we already know.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a fact?  "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."
> ...



So this isn't a fact yet you said it was.  

"the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion

And don't change number two either.  You said ""There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

First of all, you can't do that in a debate.  You can't lie right off the bat.  What you did was right off the bat assumed and said "there is one God....and then said at the end it was a fucking fact.

Please let me know what you think are facts so I can either agree or challenge.  Now you are saying 
the "fact" is there is nothing supernatural about spirituality"?  Did I ever say there was?  And besides, if there is or isn't, does that prove a god exists? 

Metaphysical, spirituality, supernatural???  Are you alright?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a fact?  "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."
> ...



I was watching Shindlers List last night and when I saw a scene I thought about you and your miracles.  There was this one scene where the guy was going to shoot the Jew and his gun wouldn't fire and then he grabbed his back up gun and it wouldn't fire.  

Was that a miracle?  Did god save that one guy and let thousands or millions die?  I bet he told the stories and they all thought it was a miracle.

That movie was frightening.  Amazing what jealous ignorant greedy theists will do to each other.  And you ask us why we don't like god or religion.  It's not a good concept.  Just ask ISIS oh yea they agree with you.  They love god.  And their god hates you.  Actually rewards them for cutting your head off or being a suicide bomber.  

Think about it boss.  God may be harmless in your little mind but god is a lie and a lie is never good.  Wake up boy.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You see... these things we call "sentences" are used for a reason. It is so that people reading them can correlate the corresponding thought in proper context. You are taking a statement I made three sentences later and applying it to a former statement that it wasn't intended to apply to. "There is one God, one true spiritual nature." That is a stand alone sentence and represents my personal viewpoint. I did not state "Science has proven and we know there is one God." Now... look closely at the sentence structure of that paragraph, you will notice that my statement about what we know, what science knows, is intended to go with the statement that humans are spiritual. Human spirituality is not supernatural, it is natural. We know this. It is a fact. 

And YES... you repeatedly call God and belief in God "the supernatural" without any qualification or evidence. Why do you continue demanding to see where I have proven God exists? We both agree this can't be proven with physical science, it's outside the ability of science to examine at this time. The ONLY way you can evaluate the question is through spiritual evidence, which you aren't willing to accept. I can never prove something to someone not willing to accept evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What does all this prove?
> ...


Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.

Gravity draws the "stuff"/mass together which generates heat. As the heat increases with mass eventually a certain critical temperature is reached that causes an explosion. It's really quite elementary.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Demonstrably false.



Then let's weigh it in the balance.  When we considered ourselves a Christian nation, we were the greatest Nation on earth, in almost every regard.  
Now that we are a secular nation, the turn around is stunning.  

And then there is prophecy.  Only one has proven He can see the end from the beginning. 
God told Hagar that her descendants would be wild asses with their hands against every man.  He made that prediction while the only Muslim on earth was in her womb.  We watch the fruition of that prophesy on the evening news, daily.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 11, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.
> 
> Gravity draws the "stuff"/mass together which generates heat. As the heat increases with mass eventually a certain critical temperature is reached that causes an explosion. It's really quite elementary.



The same person that gave us the understanding of gravity gave us the reason it exists.  A higher power.  Newton was smarter than we are today.........


----------



## BillyP (Sep 11, 2014)

God is a theory not backed up by anything at all.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 11, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Demonstrably false.
> ...


I don't consider hatred and ownership of human beings, women's lack of rights, censorship of speech on radio and television to be virtues of a nation. Sorry.

Today is great.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't have a lot of time so in the future, lets look into this "spiritual evidence" you talk about Saturday.  I'm off tomorrow and don't give you or this issue one thought on my days off.    

*Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, _falsify_ is synonymous with _nullify_, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.

Judge William Overton used falsifiability in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 11, 2014)

GT,  we have debt we will never overcome.  No jobs.  Food stamps, cause of no money, cause of no jobs.  Rampant crime, teen pregnancies, lazy entitled basement dwelling in debt children, a constitution our own Presidents refuse to follow, extreme flooding, extreme drought. Year round fires.  No respect for us as parents, teachers, or as a Nation.  Medicine we can't afford, treatment in the hands of Walmart instead of our physicians, no money for retirement, no money for our children's education.  No money.  Playgrounds and front yards that are no longer safe for our children to play in. Latch key kids. Enough pedophiles to have to register and monitor them.   Heroine to replace fruit roll ups.  Data mining children with games like Angry Birds, and data mining their parents every move.  Cameras citing our every move.  Hitler's SS in the form of the IRS and the EPA.

If you think today is great, you would have been bat shit crazy in love with yesterday's U.S.A.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 11, 2014)

> Judge William Overton used falsifiability in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools



Where did the Judge prove that we came from monkeys? Didn't seem worried about the falsifiability of monkey people in Arkansas schools.  Are they still teaching the Neanderthal to Modern man premise they tried to teach us?  lol


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Gravity doesn't act of it's own volition. All this "stuff" floating around in the universe would have had the same gravitational properties, so what made gravity suddenly decide to pick a universal spot in the cosmos to draw everything else (also with gravity) to one place? Heat, by itself, does not cause an explosion. Something can react with heat to do this, but you've not defined that. Also, when things explode, the velocity is greatest at the point of explosion and because of friction, the velocity decreases over time... the universe is accelerating in expansion. 

What is elementary is, none of your argument comports with known science and physics.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Gravity is not dormant until someone suddenly turns it on, that bis just plain stupid. The gravitational force of attraction is constantly active drawing any mass that enters its proximity. Again you show as much ignorance about heat as you do gravity. As mass is drawn into a Black Hole by gravity its heat increases. That heat must build to what is called a "CRITICAL TEMPERATURE" before there is an explosion.

Again, as was explained to you many times, the distant universe is accelerating because it is being pulled by the gravitational force of a universal black hole.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Gravity is not dormant until someone suddenly turns it on, that bis just plain stupid. The gravitational force of attraction is constantly active drawing any mass that enters its proximity. Again you show as much ignorance about heat as you do gravity. As mass is drawn into a Black Hole by gravity its heat increases. That heat must build to what is called a "CRITICAL TEMPERATURE" before there is an explosion.
> 
> Again, as was explained to you many times, the distant universe is accelerating because it is being pulled by the gravitational force of a universal black hole.



I understand gravity is not dormant until someone turns it on, that's why I am asking you to explain this incredible phenomenon to me, where gravity suddenly decides to pull all mass in the universe into one place. Black holes? We've discovered hundreds of them all over the universe... so which one decides to draw all the mass into one spot? Do the Black Holes hold a conference? do some Black Holes give up on the gravity thing and let a stronger Black Hole be the leader? And how can this be rectified with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? 

On heat, you might need to study the Laws of Thermodynamics. Heat doesn't build to a critical temperature then cause an explosion. There can be a reaction to heat which can cause an explosion, and this was instrumental in the theory of a Big Bang. But even in that theory, they never knew what reacted to heat to cause the explosion, it just obviously did. However, in the past 25-30 years, we've discovered the velocity of the universe expansion is not behaving in accordance with a Big Bang event, which prompts physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question whether we EVER had a Big Bang event. 

As I said before, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity is not dormant until someone suddenly turns it on, that bis just plain stupid. The gravitational force of attraction is constantly active drawing any mass that enters its proximity. Again you show as much ignorance about heat as you do gravity. As mass is drawn into a Black Hole by gravity its heat increases. That heat must build to what is called a "CRITICAL TEMPERATURE" before there is an explosion.
> ...


Eventually, all the black holes coalesce into one supermassive universal black hole whose gravity draws all the mass of the universe into a single point. 

The more we learn, the more YOU don't know.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Eventually, all the black holes coalesce into one supermassive universal black hole whose gravity draws all the mass of the universe into a single point.
> 
> The more we learn, the more YOU don't know.



LMAO... Intriguing! So all these hundreds of black holes scattered across the universe will tug and pull on each other until one eventually swallows up all the rest, (how do holes swallow holes?) then it will suck in the entire universe? Are you sticking with that? Is that your final answer? Okay... so what about the Uncertainty Principle? This is where Werner Heisenberg discovered it was mathematically impossible to account for all particles in the universe. Even IF your theory were valid, it is uncertain that it would even be possible for all mass of the universe to coalesce into a singularity.  

Also, the universe seems to be accelerating in places far removed from any black hole... what is causing that? 

And let's not forget, we have no idea what happens inside a black hole. We've never seen two black holes converge. There is no evidence that gravitational forces of any black hole has an effect on other bodies in the universe which are not in direct proximity. We don't really even know what a black hole IS. 

The more we learn, the more we discover you are an idiot clinging to 1980s speculations about the universe. The theory of the expanding and contracting universe has pretty much been dismissed by people like Stephen Hawking. Currently, physicists are working on quantum theory and studying quantum mechanics. This is replacing your outdated theory as we speak. String theory posits that we are but one of many universes and our four dimensions are only four of eleven (or possibly more). Things like discovery of Higgs boson have helped to confirm these theories, but the jury is still out, we simply don't have the answers and we may never find them. 

What you have done is adopted a FAITH-BASED belief in one theory. You present it as if it were some sort of proven fact that can't be disputed. Intelligent science-minded people don't do that.... EVER!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Eventually, all the black holes coalesce into one supermassive universal black hole whose gravity draws all the mass of the universe into a single point.
> ...


The Cavalier Daily Study finds converging black holes

A study released yesterday, done by astronomers at the University, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and Bonn University, with University Astronomy Prof. Craig Sarazin as a co-author, found that two "super-massive" black holes in the universe are spiraling towards a merger, the outcome of which will be the creation of a single super-massive black hole with the capability to engulf the mass equivalent of billions of stars.

Black holes are among the oldest parts of the universe, and many scientists believe their study could hold insight into the formation of the early universe.

Sarazin described the structure of the super-massive black holes.

"At the center of every galaxy is a super-massive black hole, [which can] contain between a million and 10 billion stars' worth of material," Sarazin explained. "Looking at the distant universe, there are many black holes, and they started early in the formation of the universe," he added.

Super-massive black holes contain the mass equivalent of billions of stars and continually take in additional stars, building a remarkable gravitational pull, Astronomy Prof. Bob Rood said.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2014)

Again... We have *NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! *Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort! 

So every galaxy in the universe has at least one massive black hole sucking everything in... yet somehow, some way, the various and sundry holes will one day converge with each other and consume the entire universe, at which time, heat... all by itself, will defy thermodynamic principles and create an explosion and a new universe, again full of black holes. 

And somehow, belief in this crock of shit is considered more valid that an intelligent designer?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 11, 2014)

Boss said:


> Again... We have *NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! *Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort!
> 
> So every galaxy in the universe has at least one massive black hole sucking everything in... yet somehow, some way, the various and sundry holes will one day converge with each other and consume the entire universe, at which time, heat... all by itself, will defy thermodynamic principles and create an explosion and a new universe, again full of black holes.
> 
> And somehow, belief in this crock of shit is considered *more valid that an intelligent designer*?


Well, YOU obviously believe it more credible or you would not have created a Straw Man to attack.
Thank you!


----------



## Boss (Sep 12, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again... We have *NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! *Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort!
> ...



Ed, for someone with an observatory as an avatar, you seem to be very dumb when it comes to science. I didn't create any straw man but I do think it's more *in*credible than the theory of an intelligent designer. Why are you having trouble understanding this? Your outdated theory of an expanding and contracting universe is being rethought. This is not new in science, happens all the time. Old theories are replaced by new ones and life goes on, bud. 

There have always been problems with the Big Bang theory. As I've pointed out before, even the term "Big Bang" began as a pejorative from those who thought it was a ridiculous theory. The whole "cyclical universe" idea has also been shaky at best, and with the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe, is all but dead. Stephen Hawking has written books about this, maybe you should spend more time reading them than arguing 1980s theories on a message board?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


For all your nonsensical claims of a magical, supernatural designer, it's remarkable that you Harun Yahya groupies haven't yet merged with the Scientology cranks. A marriage of the silly.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 13, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yea boss!  But keep in mind that won't stop him.  You can tell him how things happen but then he'll want to know why.  And if you can't answer the why, then he'll say this is his proof god exists.

Simply because he doesn't know why the big bang happened is his reason for believing god did it.  That's god of the gaps, right?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 13, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.
> ...



The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> Again... We have *NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! *Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort!
> 
> So every galaxy in the universe has at least one massive black hole sucking everything in... yet somehow, some way, the various and sundry holes will one day converge with each other and consume the entire universe, at which time, heat... all by itself, will defy thermodynamic principles and create an explosion and a new universe, again full of black holes.
> 
> And somehow, belief in this crock of shit is considered more valid that an intelligent designer?



Without using facts or science it seemed to our primitive ancestors that there must be an intelligent designer.  We admit, even today is is hard to believe that all this just happened by itself.  

But so far, there is no solid, hard evidence or proof that a god exists or created us.  Until there is, we will just keep looking and hopefully one day we will find out definitively if there is or isn't.  

And the big bang is a more plausible scientific explanation than god or an intelligent designer.

People who are sure an intelligent designer created us have stopped looking for answers.  They think they have the answers.  Maybe they are right?  But until science can verify theists claims, we should probably keep looking.

What created our universe?

A.  God
B.  Nothing
C.  Not sure

I say C


----------



## Boss (Sep 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> What created our universe?
> 
> A.  God
> B.  Nothing
> ...



And if you stuck with that, I wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with your views. Problem is, you bounce back and forth between B and C, and reject any possibility of A before admitting A might be possible. 



> Simply because he doesn't know why the big bang happened is his reason for believing god did it. That's god of the gaps, right?



I have argued spiritual nature did it because physical nature didn't yet exist. Physical science hasn't explained it because physical science can't. 

There is no "gap" here. That would imply that science is capable of explaining why, and it can't. Science can only explain how, it never can explain why. Now, accepting that the "why" is answered by God, doesn't dismiss scientific exploration of "how" or attempt to fill any gap.


----------

