What is God?

[YWN666]

You're right.........science requires BELIEF, which is the starting point of faith. If a scientist believes that something is possible, eventually, it will be real.

After he creates or discovers something? Then.......it's all in faith.

A friend of mine once taught me that. He stated that when I see a commercial for laundry soap that promises to get my clothes cleaner than the others, I've got to believe them first, and then see it for myself.

When I'm shown that I made the right choice? Belief is no longer required, as now I have proof. From then on, I have faith in that detergent to get my clothes clean.

As far as science goes, it is not a belief like a religious belief for which there is NO evidence or previous experience, it is a rational expectation of something that is reasonable and plausible.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No evidence? Might wanna start studying Torah then.......

The Jews not only had medical instruments, but also had a vast knowledge of the stars (they also knew that the earth WAS NOT flat), and knew how to do a lot of other stuff as well.

Who taught them? God. And......they've recently re-discovered Mt. Sinai, where Moses assembled the Israelites, and went up to talk to Father.

They also had a working knowledge of DNA. Jacob's ladder is a direct reference to it in the Torah.

So..........since they were so far advanced in their day, how do you explain that?

 

[YWN666]

No evidence? Might wanna start studying Torah then.......

The Jews not only had medical instruments, but also had a vast knowledge of the stars (they also knew that the earth WAS NOT flat), and knew how to do a lot of other stuff as well.

Who taught them? God. And......they've recently re-discovered Mt. Sinai, where Moses assembled the Israelites, and went up to talk to Father.

They also had a working knowledge of DNA. Jacob's ladder is a direct reference to it in the Torah.

So..........since they were so far advanced in their day, how do you explain that?

What is this supposed to be evidence of?

 

[LOki]

You're right.........science requires BELIEF, . . .

Not quite the way faith requires belief. Science is a method that LEADS to belief . . . belief based upon evidence and valid logic. The scientist believes what he sees.

. . . which is the starting point of faith.

This is true. Belief is without question the starting point of faith--it's also the end point. The faithful sees what he believes.

If a scientist believes that something is possible, eventually, it will be real.

Wrong. This is the faulty paradigm of the faithful. The faithful demand that reality is subject to their beliefs--that by believing hard enough they can make something real. Ask the faithful about the power of prayer. It's a hoot!

After he creates or discovers something? Then.......it's all in faith.

Wrong. This is how the superstitious understand reality--percieving something to be real is what makes it real. When a scientist discovers something about reality, the validity of that discovery is validated by evidence and/or valid logic--NOT belief.

A friend of mine once taught me that. He stated that when I see a commercial for laundry soap that promises to get my clothes cleaner than the others, I've got to believe them first, and then see it for myself.

Your friend is wrong--you don't have to believe the promise first; but if you do, you're excersizing faith. If you suspend your belief until you have evidence, then you are not excersizing faith, but rather rationality.

When I'm shown that I made the right choice? Belief is no longer required, as now I have proof. From then on, I have faith in that detergent to get my clothes clean.

No. You still have the belief that the detergent gets your clothes clean, just now your belief is based on evidence, rather than faith--you have a rational belief.

Faith is the end product of belief.

Wrong. Faith is belief unfounded in evidence or belief held in denial of contrary evidence. If you have no evidence that validates the promise--or the evidence contradicts the promise--yet you still believe that the promise is valid, you are excercising faith.

Many scientists have faith in their work, and that they will eventually cure things, as well as invent newer and better stuff.

No. YOU might have faith that scientists will eventually cure things, as well as invent newer and better stuff, but scientists are just describing reality based on evidence available to them, and applying the knowledge gained in a manner consistent with their understanding of reality.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know Loki, you should look at some of the evidence that SCIENTISTS have done concerning the power of prayer.

It seems that when they hooked up bio feedback machines to their heads, when they prayed, almost all of their brain was firing, and when they weren't, it was 1/3 to 1/2.

But..........if you choose ignorance, you're choice dude.

 

[YWN666]

You know Loki, you should look at some of the evidence that SCIENTISTS have done concerning the power of prayer.

It seems that when they hooked up bio feedback machines to their heads, when they prayed, almost all of their brain was firing, and when they weren't, it was 1/3 to 1/2.

But..........if you choose ignorance, you're choice dude.

So what? That is not a supernatural event. We know that praying for oneself can have beneficial effects but again not because there is a supernatural cause. It is a matter of your mind influencing the way the body physically works. No surprise there. Take intercessory prayer, on the other hand, (where one person prays for another) and there is NO effect.

BTW, do you have a link to the biofeedback study you mentioned?

 

[ST34]

What is God? I think that God is the name of all the things one can not explain about the world and life

it is the very brilliant observation but I will afford to improve it to:

'What is religion? I think that religion is the name of all the things one can not explain about the world and life, and what will in future explain The Science; then religion will disappear'

 

[LOki]

You know Loki, you should look at some of the evidence that SCIENTISTS have done concerning the power of prayer.

I have. You should too. But for real.

The resounding conclusion is that praying to a god is no more, or less, effective than praying to a fence-post.

Powerful stuff.

It seems that when they hooked up bio feedback machines to their heads, when they prayed, almost all of their brain was firing, and when they weren't, it was 1/3 to 1/2.

Wow. Fascinating.

But..........if you choose ignorance, you're choice dude.

What makes you presume I'm ingnoring any evidence? What you've managed to present is nothing more than the assertion that some scientists somewhere have demonstrated that when folks use their brains to pray, bio-feedback machines can detect them using their brains**. BRAVO!

**EDIT: Oh, I get it. The big discovery is that the faithful have brains to use! UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[LOki]

What is God? I lthink that God is the name of all the things one can not explain about the world and life

AKA God Of The Gaps.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, now you're just lying--it was clearly presented to you that the Bible is entirely wrong about rabbits being ruminants.

Stupid is the inability to distinguish cud from butt-nuggets--stupidity or intellectual dishonesty.

I have made ZERO dismissals regarding the possiblity and probability of one ultimate creator. I'm just dismissing your superstitious notions of one ultimate creator.

Cud is cud.

And feces is feces, and cud is not feces, and feces is not cud, and rabbits eat their feces--rabbits do not chew their cud.

Rabbits still don't chew cud. Cud is distincly different than feces, and rumination (chewing cud--which rabbits do not do) remains distinct from refection (eating feces--which rabbits do).

I'm not quite so ignorant that I'd confuse feces and cud . . .

But let's just pretend for the moment that cud and feces are the same thing . . . here's another thing that Bible is just wrong about: rabbits don't chew their feces either--they swallow those butt-nuggets whole.

You'd be better off not accusing me of ignorance regarding animals until you get informed about them yourself--preferably from a source more reliable that the Bible.

And you're hinging your entire "THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLY ACCURATE AND THEREFORE PEFECTLY AUTHORITATIVE" on the patent denial of the obvious fact that that the Bible is clearly wrong on this, and a number of other accounts.

EDIT: Though I am pointing out inaccuracies in the Bible, I haven't even suggested that the Bible is obsolete.

It's also hilarious that my belief in one creator is "superstitutious" . . .

I am certain I'm using the term correctly. I doubt you have the intellectual integrity to demonstrate to me that I'm not.

. . . while your own theory that there are a series of creators is unquestionable...from a scientific point, that is.

I think it's hilarious that consistent with your make-believe paradigm for creation theories, you've made up a theory for me (that there are a series of creators) and then assert (for me) that I think that theory is unquestionable.

Tell you what cupcake, why don't you just explain to me, and everyone else here, exactly what my theory of creation really is, and put your bullshit accusation regarding it's unquestionability to the test?

I predict, here and now, that out of your intellectual cowardice, and lack of integrity, you will refuse to do so. I further predict that (consistent with the blind arrogance the faithful have in their certainties) you will continue to insist that your assertions are valid based SOLEY upon your capacity to insist that they are, and nothing else.

Cud and feces are digested food.

I can only assume you are fixated on this because you've been kissing goats lately?

 

[AllieBaba]

You're right.........science requires BELIEF, which is the starting point of faith. If a scientist believes that something is possible, eventually, it will be real.

After he creates or discovers something? Then.......it's all in faith.

A friend of mine once taught me that. He stated that when I see a commercial for laundry soap that promises to get my clothes cleaner than the others, I've got to believe them first, and then see it for myself.

When I'm shown that I made the right choice? Belief is no longer required, as now I have proof. From then on, I have faith in that detergent to get my clothes clean.

As far as science goes, it is not a belief like a religious belief for which there is NO evidence or previous experience, it is a rational expectation of something that is reasonable and plausible.

THere is absolutely no evidence that we descend from sea amoebas, brainiac.

 

[Old Rocks]

But there is absolute evidence that we did evolve from a very simple life form. It is in every one of our cells. All life on Earth is related to us. Some more closely, primates, other life, less closely.

 

[LOki]

Cud is cud.

And feces is feces, and cud is not feces, and feces is not cud, and rabbits eat their feces--rabbits do not chew their cud.

Rabbits still don't chew cud. Cud is distincly different than feces, and rumination (chewing cud--which rabbits do not do) remains distinct from refection (eating feces--which rabbits do).

I'm not quite so ignorant that I'd confuse feces and cud . . .

But let's just pretend for the moment that cud and feces are the same thing . . . here's another thing that Bible is just wrong about: rabbits don't chew their feces either--they swallow those butt-nuggets whole.

You'd be better off not accusing me of ignorance regarding animals until you get informed about them yourself--preferably from a source more reliable that the Bible.

And you're hinging your entire "THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLY ACCURATE AND THEREFORE PEFECTLY AUTHORITATIVE" on the patent denial of the obvious fact that that the Bible is clearly wrong on this, and a number of other accounts.

EDIT: Though I am pointing out inaccuracies in the Bible, I haven't even suggested that the Bible is obsolete.

I am certain I'm using the term correctly. I doubt you have the intellectual integrity to demonstrate to me that I'm not.

. . . while your own theory that there are a series of creators is unquestionable...from a scientific point, that is.

I think it's hilarious that consistent with your make-believe paradigm for creation theories, you've made up a theory for me (that there are a series of creators) and then assert (for me) that I think that theory is unquestionable.

Tell you what cupcake, why don't you just explain to me, and everyone else here, exactly what my theory of creation really is, and put your bullshit accusation regarding it's unquestionability to the test?

I predict, here and now, that out of your intellectual cowardice, and lack of integrity, you will refuse to do so. I further predict that (consistent with the blind arrogance the faithful have in their certainties) you will continue to insist that your assertions are valid based SOLEY upon your capacity to insist that they are, and nothing else.

Cud and feces are digested food.

First, I'd like to point out that both of my predictions appear to be valid so far.

Secondly, I'd like to point out to you that cheeseburgers and mangos are undigested food, and ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Just like cud and feces are not the same thing.

I can only assume you are fixated on this because you've been kissing goats lately?

I can only assume this baseless assumption is presented to divert attention from the fact that your ass has been thoroughly handed to you.

 

[AllieBaba]

But there is absolute evidence that we did evolve from a very simple life form. It is in every one of our cells. All life on Earth is related to us. Some more closely, primates, other life, less closely.

Which does not preclude that God made us all, or prove that we are descended from sea creatures, or that God didn't facilitate our development.

Your science is no more definite than my faith. In fact, it's much more malleable and likely to change at any moment, as new things are found.

New discoveries haven't hurt the bible one iota. Which drives Christian hating nuts...nuts.

 

[AllieBaba]

And feces is feces, and cud is not feces, and feces is not cud, and rabbits eat their feces--rabbits do not chew their cud.

Rabbits still don't chew cud. Cud is distincly different than feces, and rumination (chewing cud--which rabbits do not do) remains distinct from refection (eating feces--which rabbits do).

I'm not quite so ignorant that I'd confuse feces and cud . . .

But let's just pretend for the moment that cud and feces are the same thing . . . here's another thing that Bible is just wrong about: rabbits don't chew their feces either--they swallow those butt-nuggets whole.

You'd be better off not accusing me of ignorance regarding animals until you get informed about them yourself--preferably from a source more reliable that the Bible.

And you're hinging your entire "THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLY ACCURATE AND THEREFORE PEFECTLY AUTHORITATIVE" on the patent denial of the obvious fact that that the Bible is clearly wrong on this, and a number of other accounts.

EDIT: Though I am pointing out inaccuracies in the Bible, I haven't even suggested that the Bible is obsolete.

I am certain I'm using the term correctly. I doubt you have the intellectual integrity to demonstrate to me that I'm not.

I think it's hilarious that consistent with your make-believe paradigm for creation theories, you've made up a theory for me (that there are a series of creators) and then assert (for me) that I think that theory is unquestionable.

Tell you what cupcake, why don't you just explain to me, and everyone else here, exactly what my theory of creation really is, and put your bullshit accusation regarding it's unquestionability to the test?

I predict, here and now, that out of your intellectual cowardice, and lack of integrity, you will refuse to do so. I further predict that (consistent with the blind arrogance the faithful have in their certainties) you will continue to insist that your assertions are valid based SOLEY upon your capacity to insist that they are, and nothing else.

Cud and feces are digested food.

First, I'd like to point out that both of my predictions appear to be valid so far.

Secondly, I'd like to point out to you that cheeseburgers and mangos are undigested food, and ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Just like cud and feces are not the same thing.

I can only assume you are fixated on this because you've been kissing goats lately?

I can only assume this baseless assumption is presented to divert attention from the fact that your ass has been thoroughly handed to you.

Cheeseburgers and mangos are both food, you said it yourself.

Cud and butt cud are partially digested food which the animal eats in order to extract all possible nutrients.

They're both wads of grass etc. Rabbits aren't ruminants, so they can't just burp them up. But believe me, it's the same stuff.

My ass hasn't been handed to me at all. THe fact that you're so angry is you know you're wrong. The intelligent thing would be to let it drop. I've had goats, cows, rabbits, and a variety of other animals. People refer to rabbits as chewing cud, it's a common observation because although it comes out their behinds, they still chew it and therefore it's referred to cud.

It's not like the occasional dog that laps up cat shit, or horses who will sometimes lip around in old poop. It's cud...regardless of how it gets to the animal's mouth.

 

[LOki]

But there is absolute evidence that we did evolve from a very simple life form. It is in every one of our cells. All life on Earth is related to us. Some more closely, primates, other life, less closely.

Which does not preclude that God made us all, . . .

You're right, it doesn't--but theres no evidence that suggests that God made us all; you just believe it anyway.

. . . or prove that we are descended from sea creatures, . . .

This depends upon your threshold of proof--the evidence certianly supports the notion that all life shares common ancestry.

. . . or that God didn't facilitate our development.

There's no evidence that suggests that God facilitated our development; you just believe it anyway.

Your science is no more definite than my faith.

This much is true; the faithful are stioc and definitive in their certainty they're correct--despite the fact that the evidence contradicts their certainty.

In fact, it's much more malleable and likely to change at any moment, as new things are found.

The capacity to revise ones beliefs to accomodate a better understanding of reality is the hallmark of an open mind--the refusal to revise ones beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence is the hallmark of arrogant stupidity.

New discoveries haven't hurt the bible one iota.

Sure they have. Take the biology of the rabbit for example.

Which drives Christian hating nuts...nuts.

The superstitious always seem to think that their stoicly obtuse denial of reality drives anyone nuts--it's a notion consistent with their conviction of certainty in the of the reality of things for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established..

 

[LOki]

I'd like to point out that both of my predictions still appear to be valid.

Cheeseburgers and mangos are both food, you said it yourself.

I also pointed out that they are not the same thing--that they are distinctly different from each other--a reality you insist upon denying.

Cud and butt cud are partially digested food which the animal eats in order to extract all possible nutrients.

Yet, again, cud and feces are not the same thing--that they are distinctly different from each other--a reality you insist upon denying.

They're both wads of grass etc. Rabbits aren't ruminants, so they can't just burp them up. But believe me, it's the same stuff.

It's clearly not. Cud is brought up from a fore stomache, through the throat, into the mouth--just as it is understood in the Bible. Feces, OTOH, passes entirely through the digestive system and exits via the anus.

Cud and feces are just not the same thing--a reality you insist upon denying.

My ass hasn't been handed to me at all.

Again; denial of reality.

THe fact that you're so angry is you know you're wrong.

Your certainty in the fact that I'm angry is yet another denial of reality.

The intelligent thing would be to let it drop.

The notion that someone who confuses cud and feces should have some informed opinion on intelligent behavior is just riotous.

I've had goats, cows, rabbits, and a variety of other animals.

All of which had at least one intellectual leg up on you, in that they had some kind of notion that there's a distinct difference (even if it's only a culinary difference) between cud and feces.

People refer to rabbits as chewing cud, . . .

Relatives of yours, I presume . . .

. . . it's a common observation because although it comes out their behinds, they still chew it and therefore it's referred to cud.

Do these same people refer to everything the animal chews upon as cud, or is their confusion limited to feces and cud? I'm interested in the depth of their ignorance.

It's not like the occasional dog that laps up cat shit, or horses who will sometimes lip around in old poop. It's cud...regardless of how it gets to the animal's mouth.

No. Cud comes, as previously explained, throught the throat, into the mouth--feces is different in that it passes through the digestive tract entirely.

You and your retarded relatives are simply wrong--as is the Bible when it asserts that rabbits chew their cud.

 

[LOki]

I'd like to point out that both of my predictions still appear to be valid.

 

[ST34]

What is God?

god is a piece of shit

what is absolute ?

absolute is a piece of shit

 

[Valerie]

What is God?

god is a piece of shit

what is absolute ?

absolute is a piece of shit

Brilliant!