Setting the Bar Higher

[quicksand]

\ -- it is in the beginning God.

Oh boy, oh boy oh boy.

 

Does God exist without beginning? lol. You have no idea what you JUST exposed in your reasoning,

 

 

Go ahead... answer it But read Bruce's post before my direct question to him.

[Celsus]

Why didn't you throw "billions of unseen years" into your list of God's?  That one belongs right next to Santa Claus... heck... for all you know, we could just scientifically explain that Santa Claus was responsible for some crucial steps in evolution.  I mean, he might as well have been -- we are talking about billions of unseen years after all.  Which of course, started by a magical even which you must accept by a great leap of faith in order to *believe.*

 

The thing is, that evolution is a fairy tale for adults.  I'm not talking about change over time... I'm talking about change without limitations as many of you posting here have accepted, by faith, as an explaination for our origin.  The Bible is not anti-evolutionary change at all... in fact, it demands it.  In our present state, we couldn't possibly have the varieties or breeds of different kinds of animals without it.

 

Intellegent design is no more or less scientific than "in the beginning nothing/dirt/magic" or however you want to explain billions of unseen years... both require "magic," in the beginning.  The science comes into what we can observe, and prove.

 

What you don't seem to understand, is that there are perfectly well minded, thinking, intellegent men who do not accept what you believe... and it's not just because they don't understand the theory as you would like to believe.

 

Daniel, can you give one possible test that could demonstrate the involvement of a designer? Secondly, is there any test which could identify a possible or factual designer? Until you or any other person can do so, ID is not science, but an abrogation of rationality in favor of magic.

 

Erwin Schroedinger, the giant of physics touched upon this Luddite reaction to science's nuetrality to deities. I will paraphrase, "Many believers are enraged when science fails to find the fingerprints of God in its inverstigation of the natural world...and then turn around and loudly proclaim 'God is spirit!' ". This I think touches upon the baseline absurdity of the ID movement. Believers believe in a deity which thay claim is spirit and in an unseen, unobservable spritiual reality, yet want science which by its definition only deals with nature, to find evidence of an unnatural (supernatural) being or beings. In short, creationists want to have their cake and eat it to. When it would be a positive thing for their beliefs to fiind the creator, they want it to be presumed. When it is inconvenient to find God's fingerprints (Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, earthquakes, AIDS, et al, they want God to be outside of nature. In short, this is about their juvenile emotionalism and need to be tucked into bed, never realizing that there are no magical beings to blame or praise.

 

Bruce

[Celsus]

Bruce...

 

This is bothering me... have I fuckt something up?

Thanx.....

 

 

QS,

 

That was mainly towards the Magic Minded (Xtians) and SM.

[quicksand]

QS,

 

That was mainly towards the Magic Minded (Xtians) and SM.

Thanks. I hope all freethinkers should hope to be corrected when we make f-ups. I do it quite often, cause, hell.. I speak lots in broad strokes. Ask me to talk in psydeo-genes etc.... dear Muab dib... lol .. help me out!

[daniel_1012]

 

 

Really? How did God do it then?

 

And evolution can explain this? Or are you talking about the Big Bang (just another name for Alakazam!) Just because you have Billions of Unseen Years , and a theory sandwich to big for even King Kong to swallow, doesn't make it any less magical than you claim, "in the beginning God," to be.

 

You see... in the beginning God... and then we are allowed to explain everything He created, as best we can. A scientific mind is not hindered by, "In the beginning God..." It simply accepts, that here is science... and in the beginning God...

 

You think it is intelligence that has brought you to your conclusion that there is no God, and that is a mistake.

[quicksand]

And evolution can explain this?  Or are you talking about the Big Bang (just another name for Alakazam!)  Just because you have Billions of Unseen Years ™, and a theory sandwich to big for even King Kong to swallow, doesn't make it any less magical than you claim, "in the beginning God," to be.

 

You see... in the beginning God... and then we are allowed to explain everything He created, as best we can.  A scientific mind is not hindered by, "In the beginning God..."  It simply accepts, that here is science... and in the beginning God...

 

You think it is intelligence that has brought you to your conclusion that there is no God, and that is a mistake.

LOL.

 

Please. Are you really sure you wanna try this tactic? LOL.

 

You see... in the beginning God... Oh Boy. Keep trying this special plead, ad hoc. CT, Neil. Burn him. I need to light my pipe.

[Ouroboros]

(snip)

You see... in the beginning God... and then we are allowed to explain everything He created, as best we can.  A scientific mind is not hindered by, "In the beginning God..."  It simply accepts, that here is science... and in the beginning God...

Exactly. Science should not be hindered by religious ideas. Science has to have free hands to search the explanations outside the "goddidit" theory. If scientists then try to explain the start of the universe without God, why does it bother you then? If the evidence takes the scienctist to a certain conclusion, who are you to tell the scientist he is wrong, and you do that just because a 2000 year old book have a different version of the beginning?

 

There are evidence that points to a Big Bang, but yes, there could be other explanations, but one explanation is not the Genesis story. Of course there could have been a mystical creative force, but that doesn't deny a Big Bang or Evolution. If the findings points to Big Bang and Evolution, you just have to modify your belief to "God used Big Bang and Evolution to create...", instead of furiously denying the facts.

 

If you want Genesis to be the explanation to the beginning, then you have to start un-explain so many findings in the universe and in our world, so it becomes ridiculous. It's so much easier for you to accept that a potential God used those mechanics to create, instead of fighting so hard against it. You're just trying to maintain a fiction story, instead of trying to find the truth!

 

You think it is intelligence that has brought you to your conclusion that there is no God, and that is a mistake.

So your intelligence brought you to the conclusion that there is a God, and his name is JHWH, and he has a begotten son that never was created, and he sent the Holy Spirit to help you, and his Gospel is the only truth you know of, and your intelligence led you to believe in Heaven and Hell after death?

[Vixentrox]

And evolution can explain this?  Or are you talking about the Big Bang (just another name for Alakazam!)  Just because you have Billions of Unseen Years , and a theory sandwich to big for even King Kong to swallow, doesn't make it any less magical than you claim, "in the beginning God," to be.

 

You see... in the beginning God... and then we are allowed to explain everything He created, as best we can.  A scientific mind is not hindered by, "In the beginning God..."  It simply accepts, that here is science... and in the beginning God...

 

You think it is intelligence that has brought you to your conclusion that there is no God, and that is a mistake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So in the beginning was Ra. Nice of you to clear it up for us.

[daniel_1012]

Daniel, can you give one possible test that could demonstrate the involvement of a designer? Secondly, is there any test which could identify a possible or factual designer? Until you or any other person can do so, ID is not science, but an abrogation of rationality in favor of magic.

 

Erwin Schroedinger, the giant of physics touched upon this Luddite reaction to science's nuetrality to deities. I will paraphrase, "Many believers are enraged when science fails to find the fingerprints of God in its inverstigation of the natural world...and then turn around and loudly proclaim 'God is spirit!' ". This I think touches upon the baseline absurdity of the ID movement. Believers believe in a deity which thay claim is spirit and in an unseen, unobservable spritiual reality, yet want science which by its definition only deals with nature, to find evidence of an unnatural (supernatural) being or beings. In short, creationists want to have their cake and eat it to. When it would be a positive thing for their beliefs to fiind the creator, they want it to be presumed. When it  is inconvenient to find God's fingerprints (Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, earthquakes, AIDS, et al, they want God to be outside of nature. In short, this is about their juvenile emotionalism and need to be tucked into bed, never realizing that there are no magical beings to blame or praise.

 

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Daniel, can you give one possible test that could demonstrate the involvement of a designer?

 

If I could, would you accept it as you have accepted that latter explaination for proof there is not? I give the same quesiton to you about your explaination for our origin.

 

Secondly, is there any test which could identify a possible or factual designer?

 

Do you mean, which God? No, and I don't have to do that. If you want to talk about who God is, that's another debate altogether. In the beginning God... In the beginning, nothing.

 

Until you or any other person can do so, ID is not science, but an abrogation of rationality in favor of magic.

 

Until you or any other person can silence all belief in God, in all those that believe in His existance, with cold hard fact... your explaination is but an abrogation of rationality in favor of magic.

 

Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician an phyicist who lived in the 1600's gave his "wager." Perhaps you have heard of Pascal's Wager?

 

"Who then will condemn Christians for being unable to give rational grounds for their belief... They declare that it is folly, stultitiam, in expounding it to the world, and then you complain that they do not prove it... Let us examine this point, and let us say: 'Either God is or He is not.' But to which view shall we be inclinded? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos seperates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. how will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.

 

Do not then condemn as wrong those who have made a choice, for you know nothing about it. 'No, but I will condemn them not for having made this particular choice, for, although the one who calls heads and the other one are equally at fault, that fact is that they are both at fault: the right thing is not to wager at all.

[Fweethawt]

Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician an phyicist who lived in the 1600's gave his "wager."  Perhaps you have heard of Pascal's Wager?

 

You can read it, but you won't want to understand it.

 

CLICK HERE

[daniel_1012]

You can read it, but you won't want to understand it. 

 

CLICK HERE

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Neither would you, considering you just googled it post my reply.

[quicksand]

Until you or any other person can silence all belief in God, in all those that believe in His existance, with cold hard fact... your explaination is but an abrogation of rationality in favor of magic.

Ah, the rhetoric, once again, of the Stealth Creationist. LOL.

 

THis is such a fallacy my friend. Well, okay not my friend. LOL. ITs called a false choice. Try again.

 

 

My orginal criticism of your type pf agruement still stands.

 

Try me bub.

 

 

I have your number.

[Fweethawt]

Neither would you, considering you just googled it post my reply.

I've read that entire article, straight through, for a total of three times. Each time that I read it, I also read whatever material was on the other end of the links within said article. I did this about two or three months ago. I've had it bookmarked since.

 

You know, it's usually good to read something multiple times in order to understand it.

 

I do know that you did not read it before making your snide remark. Of course, most of us here know that it's more important for you to be self-righteous than it is for you to be right.

[Ouroboros]

If I could, would you accept it as you have accepted that latter explaination for proof there is not?  I give the same quesiton to you about your explaination for our origin.

Q.

 

Do you mean, which God?  No, and I don't have to do that.  If you want to talk about who God is, that's another debate altogether.  In the beginning God... In the beginning, nothing.

In the beginning something.

 

Until you or any other person can silence all belief in God, in all those that believe in His existance, with cold hard fact... your explaination is but an abrogation of rationality in favor of magic.

Believe in God with cold hard fact? Give it up then! Where are the cold hard facts?

 

Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician an phyicist who lived in the 1600's gave his "wager."  Perhaps you have heard of Pascal's Wager?

...

NO NOT AGAIN! We have to start a counter of how many times we hear this one, and have to refute it, per month.

 

I'll give you a Pascal's Wager:

The best choice would be to select the Religion that have the best reward and worst punishment.

So the conclusion is that Islam is the best religion.

 

You have most to lose if you deny Allah your praise, and you have most to gain if you accept Allah.

 

So what was your question again?

[Ouroboros]

Neither would you, considering you just googled it post my reply.

Not likely at all, since Fwee has been on the site longer than me, and we've had that exact link up plenty of times since I became a member. The Pascal's Wager is getting pretty irritating, not because of what it says, but because Christians believe it's something that would surprise a freethinker.

[quicksand]

You have most to lose if you deny Allah your praise, and you have most to gain if you accept Allah.

Pascal's Wager is a loser refuge at an argument. Meaning: LOSER!

 

 

Read Clifford Stol's commentry on this Daniel After reading that, you'd be better off in our camp than ours.

 

Its a matter who sets the odds which is a mattter of begging authority.

[Ouroboros]

There's another thing to add to Pascal's Wager, and that is we do have something to lose if we become Christians.

 

Pascal didn't count historical evidence for the behavior of the global and dominating church. A Church just like during the Spanish Inquisition, would hurt and kill many humans. And if God doesn't exist. We would be killing of the people that would dare to speak and dare to think, and through select it would reduce the pool of intelligence. The humanity would lose greatly if we all became fundie Christians killing and murdering non-believers and alleged heretics. This loss is documented by history, and not just a fictious hope of a better life after death. It's clear, evident and present danger. Pascal intentionally or unintentionally excluded this part of his wager, just to make it his own ideas to go through, and not the common-good for humanity.

[Fweethawt]

Not likely at all, since Fwee has been on the site longer than me, and we've had that exact link up plenty of times since I became a member. The Pascal's Wager is getting pretty irritating, not because of what it says, but because Christians believe it's something that would surprise a freethinker.

 

Even as an unbeliever, one can easily recognize Pascal's Wager as being an immoral way of making a decision. Especially if it's about a God. A "good" God, at that.

 

I find it hard to believe that someone who thinks so highly of their God would use such a method to obtain belief in said God. They're pretty much still saying, "You better believe, or you're going to burn!"

 

To that, I say, blow it out of your ass. I'm incapable of being so dishonest with myself as to base my decision to believe in a God on something as flimsy and threatening as Pascal's Wager.

[quicksand]

There's another thing to add to Pascal's Wager, and that is we do have something to lose if we become Christians.

Exactly. That's Stoll's take on it. (He's a University of WI, Madison prof of philo). He posits a god of reason (cause we are reasoning creatures... for some reason and no xain I willl not beg the question) that sends a Xian to hell for blind obdieance.

 

"The Paradox of God" by Clif Stol. A quicksand pic.

[Fweethawt]

There's another thing to add to Pascal's Wager, and that is we do have something to lose if we become Christians.

 

Pascal didn't count historical evidence for the behavior of the global and dominating church. A Church just like during the Spanish Inquisition, would hurt and kill many humans. And if God doesn't exist. We would be killing of the people that would dare to speak and dare to think, and through select it would reduce the pool of intelligence. The humanity would lose greatly if we all became fundie Christians killing and murdering non-believers and alleged heretics. This loss is documented by history, and not just a fictious hope of a better life after death. It's clear, evident and present danger. Pascal intentionally or unintentionally excluded this part of his wager, just to make it his own ideas to go through, and not the common-good for humanity.

 

That link that I posted goes into detail about the detriment of falling for Pascal's Wager. The explanation does indeed sound a bit like what you just posted. You should take a look at it. If you don't click on the links within the article, you could probably read it in about ten minutes or less.

[Fweethawt]

"The Paradox of God" by Clif Stol. A quicksand pic. 

Is this an online article, or a book, Quick?

[quicksand]

Is this an online article, or a book, Quick?

Correction: Clifford A. Pickover. Not Stoll... although I have read several of each's books... lol

 

The Paradox of God

 

and Clif's website...

 

C. Pickover's Homepage

 

TIme for a drink.... and some blondes... lol

[Dianka]

QS,

 

That was mainly towards the Magic Minded (Xtians) and SM.

 

 

Could you please explain where I goofed?

 

Excuse me, but I have to express my anger about this shameless jab. If QS didn't ask you to clarify, you would not have even brought up who you were directing your message to . I thought this was a forum, where people express their thoughts, and share their knowledge. Not a place to make passive-agressive under the radar comments that I would not have known was directed toward me.

 

And I still have absolutely no clue what the hell was directed toward me.

 

How disrespectful of you Bruce! You could have at least shot me a PM if you were so Godamn outraged by my ignorance! But I suspect you were just taking shots at an easy target. Good for you 'ol boy! I am really saddened that a mod isn't above such crap!

[Ouroboros]

Let's apply Pascal's wager on terrorism threats.

 

Assume there is a terrorist somewhere in the world with enough nuclear material to blow up the whole word. And we don't know where he is or who he is. We only know that he is somewhere in middle east.

 

If we do nothing, we risk of having the whole known world blown to pieces, and everyone killed.

 

If we kill everyone in middle east, we have at least saved the rest of the world.

 

So what would be your choice?

[Ouroboros]

That link that I posted goes into detail about the detriment of falling for Pascal's Wager. The explanation does indeed sound a bit like what you just posted. You should take a look at it. If you don't click on the links within the article, you could probably read it in about ten minutes or less.

I think I read it several months ago, and most likely I got the thought from there. It shows how powerful smart arguments are to stay in your mind, and the head makes it your own.