jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (609 posts)

Einstein and atheism

  1. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    Einstein said

    'The fanatical atheists are liked slaves who are stil feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the' opium of the masses' cannot hear the music of the spheres.

    'What separates me from so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.

    I suppose my question in this forum is what scientific discoveries have been made, since Einstein was alive, that have moved us past this reasonable belief.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Einstein Quote

      Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

      Funny thing is, Buddhism is considered a spiritual non religion by most Chinese

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting. I don't know anything about Buddhism either. Don't they believe you are absorbed back into the universe when you ? Or are they the ones that believe in multiple reincarnations.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          multiple reincarnations for sure the other not so sure

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I meant to say did they believe they were absorbed into the universe when they die. This droid I use to read these forums is hard to post with sometimes.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Since the whole universe is connected and Buddhism believe that too, one way or another, they do

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                From what little I know of it, it sounds kind of cool. I don't think I could do it though. They seem pretty sedate. I couldn't sit that long and meditate.

        2. pisean282311 profile image58
          pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          absorbed in source is hinduism aspect...m not sure whether buddist do believe in that...but yes reincarnation is in both...

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I like the concept.

            1. pisean282311 profile image58
              pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              which one absorbed in source or reincarnation?

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sorry.i didn't see your post earlier. Pcunix keeps interjecting nonsense. Both concepts actually. Both make our conciousness one with the universe, in a way. It actually goes hand in hand with some of the concepts of Christianity to me. Kind of unifies the world. Everyone has a little piece of the truth.

            2. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Of course you do.  You'd like anything that doesn't force you to face the reality that you will die and will not exist thereafter.

              That's the major attraction of theism.  Not the only - it's also bound up with much more complicated psychological needs related to justice, punishment and reward- but a very important part.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                sorry you feel that way. Not what I would consider to be a valid point, but interesting. You don't get the attraction to theism, I get it.

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You silly thing: of course I GET it.  We ALL "get it".   Every single atheist in the world understands why you are attracted to theism and many actually envy you for your ability to ignore logic and rationalize your beliefs into something that doesn't make your tummy ache. Many an atheist has said that they would LOVE to be able to live in that comfortable fantasy.

                  I really don't think you understand much. Your responses are childish, you ignore what people actually say and banter with imaginary straw men.   There ARE serious issues that have come up in the course of this thread, issues that are worthy of intelligent discussion, but you act like a bored and spoiled child sitting on the floor trying to get the adults attention by being obnoxious.

                  Grow up a little and you might just learn something.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The problem I have with the entrenched athists and theists are, they are doggedly determined to continually try to shove their personal belief structure down anyone's throat within earshot.. But at least the theist is trying to please Someone other than himself..  I do give them that.  Your singleminded focus on the stance 'there is not god' proves that you think about Him a whole lot more than most others.  I get your mantra.  If I chose to focus on a single thought as you appear to, it would probably be 'Lighten up, Lighten up, Lighten up.'  I choose to listen to others and attempt to enjoy what they say.  I am continuing to attempt to enjoy your interjections.  But, I usually chant my mantra after reading them.

      2. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Castlepaloma, very interesting. I am inclined to agree with you.

    2. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If he ever said such a thing (I have never heard of this), it was not a reasonable position at all.

      No god is possible. That's obvious to anyone who applies simple reasoning.

      That quote does not imply theism, by the way. It describes a certain kind of atheism that he may have found objectionable.

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, no answer to the question. Gotcha.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We had all the science needed to know there are no gods hundreds of years ago - thousands, realy.

          People are hopeful.  Science has nothing to do with it. We ca can explain better why gods are impossible now, but people still won't believe it.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, but I find humorous. The we part. Anyway, that's not the point. I'm not asking about gods. I'm basically asking how you can state, unequivocally that it is figured out. I think that is an odd stretch of the knowledge we have so far. There is much to learn and many theories come to dead ends. Don't you consider yourself to be cubbyholed? There is stil much we cannot observe. How has scientific discovery passed the point of  considering any but the most limited of possibilities. This is in no way suggesting you consider the possibility of God. There are more than two options here.

            1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
              Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Pcunix is right,

              We don't need science to prove the existence or non existence of God, we never did.

              Our ancient ancestors were ordered to believe, some on pain of death, so they believed. 

              The answer lies in History not science, most people who belief or want to belief in God and or religion will use history but only go so far back as to find what they are looking for, then they stop.

              However, if they were to journey further back in time they would find not God but Gods.. hundreds of them and the people who created them.

              Man created God, not the other way around, the proof is there but those who want or need a God will deny it claiming History started with 6,000 years ago and Adam and Eve...

              Practically everbody knows that's is neither fact nor truth but somehow they cling to rest as if it were.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Gentlemen, gentleman. This is not a forum about a god. Why do we keep going that route?  I don't advocate that Einstein's statement implied he believed in God. I don't know that.

            2. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, there are not options.

              People get confused because it is true that we cannot absolutely say that our Universe was not created. That seems extremely unlikely, but it COULD be possible.

              A creator is not a god - in fact, cannot be a god.

              (A creator could be a fourth year physics student, a group of of intelligent beings from a prior universe who made sure their heat death Universe would return to a collapsed state and so on. Please do NOT babble that creator = god!)

              The concept of "god" requires that the being did not evolve from natural cause, whether those causes be evolution or pure chance. If the being is natural, it is no god: it is just as subject to physics as anything else.

              By the way, don't bother moving your god-thing to some other universe with some alternate physics. If it is a natural product of ANY physics, it is no god.

              Nor is there any point in gods creating gods:  Turtles all the way down doesn't help.

              Having disposed of that, our god has only two possibilities left: self creation or eternal existence.

              The first is logically impossible. To create yourself impies that you exist before you exist.  I know theists are quite happy to accept such babble, but no person of reason should be.

              The latter fails because of entropy and because of the logical issue of homogenous parts.

              These are actually similar issues. The creature obviously needs the ability to store and release energy, if for no other reason than to be conscious and have memory.  It can't be a closed system - it would be a perpetual motion machine! 

              Perhaps more important is that it cannot be homogenous. It will  need potentials and differentials; therefore this complex thing has to be composed of simpler parts that obey some physics.  Therefore, once again, it is the product of natural laws and no god.

              Entropy problems tear  at this never ending, never beginning thing for identical reasons.

              Gods are impossible.  I can accept that theists will ignore that and try to pretend that logic need not apply,but it continues to astound me that otherwise intelligent people make fools of themselves by insisting that gods are possible beings.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Again, and I will type this slowly so everyone can follow. The question has nothing to do with the concept of a god. Is there an atheist out there who can follow? Sheesh.

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Again - and I hope you can follow this time - the above is all the science needed to undersand that gods are impossible.

                  If that quote is Einstein, it just shows that he had justified fear of religious thought and objected to militant atheists. I've seen other quotes by him and similar people who try to give some lip service to the religious.  That almost always comes from fear - you can see it all through Hawkings writings, for example.

                  So yes, prior to understanding the beginning of physics,you might have had some faint excuse for pretending that gods are a possibility. That ship sank long ago,, and it was a pretty leaky vessel to begin with.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well,i hope you feel better, now that that's off your chest.

              2. andycool profile image71
                andycoolposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Gods are impossible.  I can accept that theists will ignore that and try to pretend that logic need not apply,but it continues to astound me that otherwise intelligent people make fools of themselves by insisting that gods are possible beings."   -   BTW being your fan & follower Mr. Pcunix let me humbly ask you something...

                Everything you say and share implicitly divulge onething about yourself... that's you're more intelligent than most of us. A man who sitting almost 24 hours a day infront of a PC delivers free advises is not someone worthy enough to convince all intellectuals in the world. What special have you done in life that you can boast about? Please share... thanks!

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you asking me?

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    andycool

                    I continually remind almost everyone, I meet that we are all general equal , if you asking me?

                2. Merlin Fraser profile image79
                  Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why should Pc prove anything to you,or supply any credentials to you to express an opinion on this or any other Forum subject ?

                  As far as I can see it is a well thought out and reasoned logical argument which we can chose to accept or deny.

                  I happen to agree with his argument that Gods are impossible in the rediculous way they are presented in religion. This is forgivable considering they are based upon ancient writings by a people who knew no better.

                  Man created the Gods not the other way around, this is a well documented and reasonably well argued debate.

                  In broad general terms I believe if the subject were anything other than religion this God delusion would be considered by physiatrists as a possible case of mass hysteria, certainly in some areas of the world.

                  If people were just to stop and look at the question from our potentially logical point of view they would see how much more sense it makes than the rediculous arguments they keep offering to prove our argument wrong.

                  1. andycool profile image71
                    andycoolposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Merlin Fraser... a man's credential is the best way to judge him, don't you know that especially when you're from a corporate world? Or you want to intentionally forget that for argument's sake? BTW do you still follow paganism? Take care... thanks! smile

                  2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Merlin Fraser

                    Personally I have no stakes in religion or atheist groups. I can not speak for others except myself

                    if anyone tells me I am a limited thinker. Why waste time over, with silly arguments and debates.  Put your action where your mouth is, its show time!!!! Show me how many areas is PC world class in.

                    Is God is impossible?
                    Not according to 8/10 or 9/10 of the World population include the history and experiece within,
                    Show Atheist history, not much hey!.

                    If Scientist get pass the whole human race and its 1% knowledge and information about the earth’s surface crust of 6 km, deep. Just maybe we can take that 1% knowledge increase it to the unknown 99% interior of the earth we don't know anything about. Afterwards let’s have scientist start on the Universe and turn every rock over to find proof that God dose not exist.

                    Once all the data is in and the Universe shows there is no proof of God's existence

                    It's Simple, once proven, I will personally agree with you that God is impossible

                3. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  In fact, I am more intelligent than most.  That's simple fact, but completely unimportant here because the arguments I have presented do not require powerful intellect or even much knowledge of science, physics or anything else.  Of course those things help, but they are not needed.

                  Because the argument is so simple and direct, there is no need to present any credentials or accomplishments. In fact, feel free to disregard my claim of unusual intelligence: feel free to assume that I am quite normal or even slightly retarded: nothing changes. My argument stands on its own merit and if you wish to refute it, you need to turn your attention to it rather than looking for credentials and accomplishments.

                  1. andycool profile image71
                    andycoolposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "In fact, I am more intelligent than most." - No sir, you're not (if you're intelligent Osama Bin Laden is also intelligent). You have no credentials to share... shame, shame! You're rather an extra emotional, obssessive and impulsive person who can only attack people sitting behind closed doors. Intelligence is like fresh air that spreads out to educate others. You don't like that noble job. You only spread hatred among people, Mark Knowles is that kind of personality too.

                    Another explanation about you could be: Hubpages and similar things are your only way to earn some living. Attacking religion is a short cut and cheap way to get noticed. And then some AdSense money follow!

      2. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And you are right on one point. I think he was pretty clear he wasn't a theist, in the sense we tend to describe it, as being a personal god, interested in our lives.

    3. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      oh where to begin...

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do begin...I'd be very interested to know where and what your positions are in this debate, considering that you are an expert on myths and mythologies.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'll just publish a book about it and make money. I already spend so many non-income generating hours in the forums. Maybe next time.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Disappointing on so many levels. But good luck with your book.

    4. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Many people believe that Einstein was an atheist. This is not fully true. Einstein was quoted as saying that he was searching the universe for its truths in order to find knowledge of the Superior Being that designed it. He wanted to know our Creator. He took a step toward Christianity by quoting that regardless of how finesse and articulate a person be that Jesus was much to big for him to dismissed.

      1. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Is there some reason you felt the need to fabricate stories about Einstein? To support your own beliefs, perhaps? How very sad believers stoop to such levels of dishonesty.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, they have to, don't they?

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wow guys! Just research quotes by Einstein as I did. Thank you.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Since, by your own words, you've researched Einstein's quotes.

              Then explain- "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind".

              I know what it means, but I would like your take on it.

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By the way, the full article is here:

                http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

                1. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol lol

                  That is nothing more than ignorance gone awry. lol The explanation is much simpler than that link makes it appear. lol

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The link is Einstein's actual words.  It's not an explanation.

            2. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              To what purpose?

              Whatever Einstein believed, said or harbored inside himself, what does that matter?

              The original post asked what we know today that precludes "god" as an answer to anything.  I've pointed out that we didn't really need to know any more than what was known in Einstein's time. No gods are possible, period and it doesn't require great intelligence or even much education to see that. 

              You understood what I said earlier about information storage and decision making, right? The bit about zero's and ones and NAND gates?  Wouldn't you agree that anyone of quite normal intelligence and minimal education should be able to comprehend that?

              Why do we need Einstein?  What's the point?

            3. Beelzedad profile image61
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, we did, that's why we know you fabricated those stories. smile

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Either I have totally lost my mind or you guys should continue your research.

                1. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Continue research? Ironic, it is you who should continue research. I've done mine and it's finished.

                  And, you've still not addressed my previous posts to you either. Which, only means, you're dismissing it. But, that's nothing new.

                2. Beelzedad profile image61
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Then, as per your own words, you have lost your mind, or you just fabricated those stories, take your pick. smile

  2. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

    As for your question- many advancements have been made. wink

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Most Buddhist do not think of God, Einstein also kept atheists and Religion so open ended. Like a mystery like God, here are a few other thoughts he had to figure out.

      Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, Einstein we recall, while describing himself as a “deeply religious man,” went on to say he could not conceive of a God who would “reward or punish,” nor could he condone a belief in a consciousness which would “survive physical death.” "I want to know all God's thoughts; all the rest are just details."

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you even understand the quote I left? hmm

        As for the other quotes- Einstein was smart enough to play and speak about both sides of the spectrum.

        He believed in a higher power, just not that of religion speaks of. He also couldn't come out directly to dismiss religion either, because he knew it would cost him his life if he did.

        He was "deeply religious" means that he was "religious"(constantly using the same method over and over, and over) in what he did.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I used this quote a few times myself.

          "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

          He was also Jewish, yes what awfully careful tip toe steps he must have had taken.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Science without Religion is lame? Explain?

            Religion without Science is blind? Explain?

            I just want to see if you and I are on the same page with the understanding of this statement. wink

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Cagsil

              Thinking more about it more, it would make a good hub

              Science without religion is lame Religion without science is blind

              Science without religion is lame
              Science seems to be based on evidence and technology. Science lacks inspiration as it seems to be UN revelation making it lame for the imagination of the darkest. In the context of the size of the universe, if science tries envisioning the scale of Universe they would tend to ignore the many possibilities. Today's science acknowledges dealing with vast lack of knowledge of dark matter and dark energy, is humbling to our minds.Yet, Einstein quoted the most incomprehensible thing about Universe is the Universe comprehensible

              Religion without Science is blind
              Increase our knowledge without growing spiritually is lacking strength and balance. If anyone has not made a mistake may have not tried many new things and most likely living in denial. Tiring to find science through Religion that is based on the dark ages and low consciousness hardship makes living for today, incomprehensible.  Religion lacks a great deal of science as most profession scientist go lack the belief in magic and in God. Religion on a scale of 1 to 10 Religion is on a scale of 2 and non believer of God on a scale of 8 . The Universe is all connected, yet, people want to separate, Religion tends to be based on magic and experience. 

              A sum up 
              Science technology is indistinguishable from magic.

              1. 0
                china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Just droppin gin my two-pennorth  - 

                I think you confuse religion with spirituality.

                The main difference this would make to your idea is that religion looks backward to tradition and established codes of behaviour,  while spirituality is pretty much only about looking outside of yourself.

                1. habee profile image92
                  habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I like the way you put that, CM!

                2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  When I say to each person from each religion, that I am spiritual rather religious. They answer me back with "What other spirituality other than our " -Christianity, Muslim Hindu etc ect what ever ect....They demonized any other spiritual belief or thoughts.

                  I think as you do by looking outside yourself. For spirituality to me means 99% of the unknown Universe.

                  Religion is an ancient spirituality with longest written recorded history with 8/10th of the world population is religious today, it's becoming rapidly out dated as we slowly move towards a true spiritual age.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think your right, if I understand you correctly. 99% of the unknown universe. Einstein, to me, wasn't ready to say this was all by chance. I'm just curious how we moved in that direction.

                3. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I just asked a question. What makes you think it isa religious one?

                  1. 0
                    china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You wouldn't understand as this was clearly in reply to someone else, someone who can think.

    2. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, of course, advancements have been made. It is simply that it is the stand of a few of those that advocate atheism that science disproves the idea of order by anything other than chaos. I'm curious how they came to that conclusion, through scientific reasoning.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No one came to this conclusion. No one says it was chance.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If not chance, then what? I'm not aware of an option other than the universe was formed by chance or it had some help. Please share your thoughts. this puzzles me.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Read "the Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking. And this is a good website written for laymen about string theory:

            http://superstringtheory.com/

            Just because you cannot fathom any other alternatives - and if God did not do it - it must have been chance. This does not mean - as you keep telling me - that "science" says it was chance.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wow, I truly wish it was someone else trying to explain this. Sometimes I read your posts as coming off a little harsh. I'm not advocating God here. I do understand string theory, to the extent a laymen might. I am asking for an answer to what you perceive it to be. I am fully aware none of us are Einsteins. If you say not chance, how do you perceive the reason for the order of the cosmos?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry? You understand string theory? Perhaps you could explain it to me, because I am having trouble with it myself. Yet you think science says the universe was formed by chance? Where do you get that from? 

                Here are a few other options for you:

                1. The universe has always existed
                2. Gravity caused this universe and all multi verses to form themselves.
                3. The universe does not exist outside your perception.

                "Science" has stated that there is "no need" for a god to create the universe.

                I wish you would not keep insulting my intelligence though. Of course you are advocating a god. LOLOL

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you confuse intelligence with something else. I'm not advocating God. Just asking a question. I did not say I understood string theory anymore than the average layman. By the definition of atheism, as I understand it, it is anti theist. It appears there are those among us that have taken that to mean there is nothing more than chance. And order,As we define it, without some guiding force is exactly that. I don't have a problem with the stand ' there is no god'. I see the reasoning behind that conclusion. What I am trying to learn is something else. I see you are entrenched in refusing to understand my dilemma. But thanks for the intetesting comments.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah - I see - I was not understanding your dilemma.

                    Your dilemma seems to be that - you think "no guiding force," means "chance."

                    This is not the case. No one is saying it is chance. Only you. No one is saying there is "no guiding force," either.

                    Gravity is a "guiding force."

                    You seem to have confused "a god is not necessary," and "I do not believe there is a god," for - "there was no guiding force," and subsequently decided that this means "chance."

                    You are mistaken in this. I hope that helps.

                  2. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The definition of atheist is NOT "anti-theist".

                    Perhaps this is part of your problem - you do not know what words mean.

    3. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame." Einstein
      Spirituality must advance ahead of science to prevent nice atheist from destroying all of us.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Goes to show you lack the ability to understand the statement. Not surprising. hmm

        1. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil, "you meant to say or you should have said........." But on the other hand, you brilliantly stated the untruth.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            wilmiers77

            You mean the 3% atheist of this world, who can not hold any political office in America would destroy us all, including the 8/10th religious right

            Huge Fat chance

            Politicians kill people, not the military

            Besides, Cagsil is not an Atheist, he just doesn’t believe in God,
            Or whatever he self proclaims himself to be

      2. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting how you took his words and twisted them to suit your agenda of conflict. smile

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I suppose you could see it that way. Or not, if you weren't looking for conflict. I guess it depends what you're looking for.

  3. barranca profile image77
    barrancaposted 5 years ago

    I like Einstein's quotation because it evinces a certain humility and awe as he contemplates the universe.  Another one along the same lines is one by John Berryman:   "I don't try to reconcile anything" said the poet at eighty, "It is a damn strange world."  Whether there is intelligent order intrinsic to the universe or such order is merely a construction of our understanding is presumably the question.  I find it easier, more energizing, satisfying intellectually, more productive and interesting to pursue the former hypothesis than the latter.  Others might feel just the opposite....more power to them.   In any case we have a language that picks out harmony, beauty, order.  We must be seeing something or we would not have evolved a language to help us perceive such.  The argument of the theists and atheists reminds me of entrenched politicians debating and spinning issues ideologically from predetermined interests.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you. Very insightful.

    2. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      barranca, not rocking the boat and enjoying what is now is fine, but eventually a storm shall rock it, blowing all that one is enjoying now into oblivion.

  4. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    I suppose if all you are looking for is what force organised the Universe then I would say look no further than Gravity.

    It holds us to the ground keeps us in orbit around our sun and is powerful enough to spin entire galaxies into pretty spiral shapes.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Simply gravity? You attribute it to nothing more than gravity? The order of the cosmos from the vastness of the universe, down to the coding of DNA?  The only thing we can look to is gravity? I repeat, I did not start this forum for answers on any god. I want to know how a thinking person wraps it all together. And please don't state simply string theory. It is very interesting, but as yet unproven.

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes,  So does Hawkings, at least for now.  I expect him to revert back to a theological position before he dies, but we'll see: he may be stronger than I think.

        You seem to be very uneducated in this area.  I find it odd that a person who obviously knows very little about current scientific thinking in this regard is so eager to express their opinions on the failings of theories you don't even know about, never mind understand.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          See, that is what I find so laughable. I try to ask a simple question and, unable to offer response, you choose a flip and somewhat rude retort. If you feel so superior in this, please reflect it in your responses. I have been given no answers yet that do not sound anything more than trite and simplistic.
          Is there an atheist in the house that has pondered past the simple and, I'm sorry to say, somewhat monotonous response that there is no god. Someone  among you has to be deeper than that. If that's the extent of your explanation of the mysteries than: wow. Are you thinking? Do you really believe it is a simple, there is no god so what's to think about? I'll just wait until I get some answers on the nightly news? I'm at a loss here.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, as I expected, you didn't read or can't understand the very basic reasons I gave you as to the impossibility of gods.

            That's fine - whatever your reasons, whether paucity of mind or deeply held emotional conviction or something entirely different, I really don't care. However, I DO care that you fib and say that no one answered your silly question. It HAS been answered. 

            Typical theistic/agnostic thinking.  I see the same thing in your hubs.

            Why do you torture yourself? Is your mission to convert?  Or is it ridicule? You've accomplished the latter, at least for the little minds who are best prepared to appreciate it. You won't get anywhere with the rest of us though, because we HAVE thought about these things, probably far more deeply than you are capable of (again, possibly for emotional reasons) and we have heard all this silly theist bleating before.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Aw, pcunix.  i just saw this.  You read my hubs?  I'm honored.  I would have read yours, but i don't need to winterize a camper trailer.  And, so you know, I don't espouse to know deeper truths.  My hubs are simply offered as humor. Laugh a little.  It will do you good. Goodness knows it couldn't hurt. (Hey, notice how I threw in an extra oness in that word so it wouldn't offend you?) I'm trying to be nice. I'd throw in a smiley face, but I don't have emoticons.

      2. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You ask for one single unifying force, that force is gravity.  Yes it’s that simple,  nowhere in my answer did I mention String theory or God, you said you didn’t want them included so I didn’t... You Did... Again !

        Just think about the power of gravity for awhile... you’ll work it out  !

        1. 0
          china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Or just don't - and then watch them all float off and so ending any trivial discussions about mythticiGive up and go contribute to the Katrina thread instead.

        2. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I found it interesting that he rejected string theory out of hand. Of course it IS wrong - the math doesn't work entirely - but plainly something very much like it WILL be the final word.

          I think that it is often when we get too uncomfortably close to the truth that we see the most violent rejection. Evolutionary theory comes to mind as an excellent example.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey pcunix. In not throwing out string theory. It just can't be used until we move a little further. But I think I have gotten some understanding from all of you. There is no god, we haven't thought past that. that's ok. Incredibly; and I feel I could not get across to you how sincerely I feel this, boring. But it's your thing.

  5. 0
    china manposted 5 years ago

    PC - give up why don't you - go over and comment on the Katrina thread instead of wasting your ireaoning ability here.

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Naw, it's too much fun playing with him. He (or she) will blow a fuse soon, I think smile

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We Hope...!

          Good Luck I'm outta Here !

      2. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, and trust me. It is not within your ability to make me mad. Testy maybe, but that is only in response to the monotony of your posts

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How amusing.

          You are bored?

          Then run off and play somewhere else. We don't need you.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey buddy, kicking me out of my own forum? Sheesh how merciful of you, that is if you plan on continuing this rant about' there is no god'. Is that record stuck in your had or something?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              just_curious

              Pcunix is a self proclaim atheist after all, forgive him, for his work load is to convince 8/10th of the world they are wrong

              I would not want that job, he would not harm anyone in this (a bit) thankless job.

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wrong.

                I don't care to convince anyone.  If someone asks silly questions or makes foolish assertions, I respond. It passes the time and can be amusing watching theists squirm.

                I also do it to help young atheists realize that they are not alone - that there are other sane, rational people in the world.  That can be important.  My wife, for example, thought there was something wrong with her because she was surrounded by people who believed obvious nonsense.

                So, I do what I do for people like her and to amuse myself. Convincing fools has little or nothing to do with it.

                1. andycool profile image71
                  andycoolposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Who are you to decide who is a fool and what are silly questions... what's your worth? Your way to get amusement is not normal... just go out and enjoy the nature. Get rid of your PC and obsolete OS for some days. Otherwise this mania will eat you.

                  PS - You said you don't want to comvince anyone. But you try to establish your thoughts which is clearly visible. Why doing it... ask yourself and if you are confused consult a clinical psychologist. May be you're suffering from some psychiatric disorder.

                  Take care! smile

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey andycool.  I like the way you post.  I was beginning to think I was the only one who got pcunix.

            2. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It seems to be stuck in yours.

              I responded. I told you why gods are impossible. All you keep doing is whining "Yes they are!".

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think every one is God, I figure atheists would maybe accept this concept, this way of thinking, creates us all equal'

                The 8/10 religious system has only one exclusive super nature god or Gods they all fight over. I would not choose to win over all these kinds of fight clubs. I am a lover not a fighter, too much whining afterwards.

                I once had a Jewish girlfriend that I wine and dined, then she was whining about, I wwwwanntt to gooo to Miami

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Fine.  And I think we are all goldfish.

                  Does refining words change anything? Does it somehow make nonsense more palatable if you redefine the word to mean any odd thing you pick?

                  Yeah - "God is everything".  Fine. Then that god is nothing at all.

              2. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Now see, i missed this post. Do I come off as whining? Hmm.we disagree. I'll try to wrap my head around that. We seemed to be so simpatico.

    2. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And as for you china man, what can I say? You didn't really contribute, except for egging people on. And I'm cool with that. Fun is always good.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hey! you are all my little buddies,or maybe not some so much.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Every thing's cool. But I can tell you. I'd rather be a buddhist than an atheist any day of the week. Atheists don't think about anything. I'd go crazy.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No wonder your religion causes so many wars.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL. You're a funny guy. I feel like a deer in headlights. I guess if they run me down, it's my fault for standing around. Pcinix already kicked me off the forum. I'll go, eventually.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't care if you stay or go, and certainly would not tell you to leave. Your approach has simply validated my thoughts on self-professed Christians . Nothing more, nothing less. A shame, but - there you are. That is life. In a way - I am thankful to people such as yourself for showing me the true value of your religion. sad

                ciao

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's what I love about you. your insults are empty. And I know you do that because you're a nice guy; don't want to hurt amyone's feelings, don't want to make the other atheists mad. You're a good man Mark.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I was not insulting you. I am genuinely thankful to you. You are living proof of the value of your professed belief system. If that hurts your feelings, Lorraine - so be it. wink

              2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pcinix can not kick you off your forum, unless you break the forum rules

                I've seen nothing yet, that breaks the rules.

                Try going to an Atheists site, you will find  these atheist guys here are kind

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm just kidding. I know he can't.

              3. Beelzedad profile image61
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I welcome you to stay, there is a great deal you can learn if you do. smile

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, teach me, oh great and powerful Oz.

              4. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I kicked you off??

                Really?  How did I accomplish this miracle?  And why would I?  Your theist bleating doesn't bother me.

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, with the exception of my posts begging you to change the subject, i was just asking for information. Sorry your only response consisted of ' there is no god, there is no god.' Do you chant that every night to put yourself to sleep?

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?

                    Facts say differently.  Anyone who actually read this thread would say it is you who chants monotonously. The rest of us simply respond to your nonsense.

          2. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This statement lacks a lot of something, maybe thought.

            Atheists do think, they think about the here and now, which is considered more valuable, than thinking about what might happen after they die. lol

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that came out more harshly than I meant; but it's more than  not pondering death, its the pondering absolutely nothing but the right here, right now. I just can't fathom limiting oneself to that extent. But, variety is the spice of life. The world would be less interesting if we had no atheists.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pondering what is after death is meaningless because you are not focusing on the life you are living. The action you take in the here and now, not to mention the future(before death arrives) is what should seriously matter to people, never mind the selfish attitude about what is after life? hmm

                1. h.a.borcich profile image60
                  h.a.borcichposted 5 years ago in reply to this



                  Would this line of thinking - that thoughts of what is after this life are selfish - also apply to reviewing the past? If the one is a waste of time and a deviation from the present, surely the other is also?

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, dwelling and harping on the past is most certainly can debilitating to a person, and yes that person would be no help to the present.

                    However, since it is you asking this question, I await for your predictable response. So, please do.

                  2. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    By reviewing the past, we can see where we went wrong (or right) and plan to do better in the future.

                    Imagining POSSIBLE futures is not a waste of time. Imaging impossible ones certainly is.

                2. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  See, I'm not talking about after death. That will take care of itself. It's part of the here and now that some seem to dismiss. Imagination seems to be missing in some philosophies. We could not have evolved as a civilization without it. Yet there are those here that post as if they believe thinking outside of any but the rigidest box is wrong

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    To think outside the box, requires to understand rationale and irrationality. You must choose one or the other and then let your imagination go from there.

                    One will lead you to truth and the other will leave you asking questions. wink

                  2. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?

                    There's nothing wrong with imagining anything, even impossible things.

                    Believing impossible things is something else entirely. It may be harmless if you don't take it too seriously. It may even be wonderful if you take it seriously: consider the archetype Mother Teresa.

                    But it can also be quite damaging.

          3. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Considering atheists have no religious belief system to fill their brains with hypocrisy and contradictions, they have all the time in the world to think. If they don't think, what else do you believe they are doing? smile

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Got me, but I'm sure you will tell me.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I wonder Beelzedad is an atheist or not?

                An Atheism in the Wizard of OZ , like who would have thought that a movie made in the heart of the Depression would undermine faith and authority?

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why? Because the weak need religion more during a depression?

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It may have had some effect on Einstein veiws on God too,

                    Einstein never said he was an atheist and there is not much history recorded on Atheists.

                2. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Beezeldad as Oz. I would love to see that one. Maybe cast pcunix as the scarecrow. He's got a hat. Or no, the horse of a different color. We need to find a very serious female atheist for the wicked witch of the west. That'll be tough. All the women seem so nice. I'm sure they'd give you a nice part, me I'd probably have to play a flying monkey.

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    We have a large population of female atheists.

                    Funny though, as Dorothy was the atheist and yet you want to cast an atheist as one of the witches.

                    More lack of education?

                  2. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. smile

  6. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    ggggophers! Must go back edweiro ff.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL. Anyone that doesn't find humor in the ongoing debate between atheists and believers does need a filter. The conversations always degrade. I just prefer to laugh at it, instead of stomping of mad and huffy. No one is ever going to listen to each other or agree.

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I've already explained that to you. Do your really forget so easily?

        I don't write to argue with you. I already know that you are incapable of understanding, whether from intellectual or emotional cause.   You are a lost cause, doomed to live in fantasy forever.

        Nor do I have any real issue with that. I think it is fine, so long as you aren't using your fantasy to justify harming or interfering with other people. I even believe that this fantasy can help some people live a better life and do good things.

        I write primarily for the isolated and frightened atheist who sees a world of madness surrounding them and needs to know that there ARE other rational people in the world.  I don't deny that it amuses me to watch people like you squirm in discomfort and babble nonsense in defense of their fantasies, but that is not what keeps me coming back - it just makes the job more fun.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You continue to slay me. I love to read your fiction.

        2. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          pcunix, playing the devils advocate is fun at first. But O'girl, when the weight of responsibilities fall on you that's another world requiring a believe or faith to sustain yourself successfully.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Faith in oneself, one needs to live day to day. What's your point?

  7. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago

    I have read comments about physics dismissing the existence of God; about gods creating gods, and that creator doesn't equal a god or the God. HUMMBUG! Hog wash! GOD IS A SPIRIT. God created physics and Einstein and You.If you would be still and listen to your spirit, God would tell your spirit the truth. Our meager minds can not perceive the complete Entity of God, only after thoughts.

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, well, there we go: He said "Humbug".  Not only that, but he invoked the ever popular "Spirit" defense. That settles it then:  their god is real.

      Theists: their arguing skills are  truly incredible,

      Ooops. I almost didn't notice the "meager minds" bit.  Two extra debate points for that!

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Pcunix. I am truly disappointed. You've given in so quickly. Show some backbone. Do some chanting. You'rr an atheist for goodness sake. You forgot the word not in your first sentence.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, my bad.paragraph. I meant paragraph. Lord knows, I'll get clobbered for that slip.

      2. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Pcunix, you are giving me nursery responses. You can't see it; you can't feel it; you can't smell it; therefore you don't believe it. Be still and sense the truth of God. Please allow universal minds to lead you out of your nursery step by step, keeping you from falling, showing you the beginning of your perceptions unto the universal truths converging unto God and His Salvation unto humans. Don't become afraid!

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No. It's nothing to do with feeling and smelling.

          Don't put up strawmen and tear them down to pretend you have answered any argument.

          Just above here I have reformulated my arguments. Address THOSE intelligently and there is reason to pay attention to you. Otherwise, there is not.

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In your case, I regret that it is what you can sense. The nursery label sticks on you. Grasshopper label also sticks on you due to the fact you jump from one popular position to another and never the underlining foundation.

            I don't believe that you have considered the coming into existence and going out of existence of all form (considering abstract symbols and concepts as form). Popular thoughts always rely on concepts and facts to be very static when in essence they are fluid with constant variance. Once this is considered, God and Son Of God begins to appear.

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This is classic religious babble.  Meaningless noise, at least as presented here.  I doubt anyone can even begin to say what, if anything, you actually mean here.  I certainly can't.

              I have shown that no god can exist. Certainly something YOU interpret as a god can exist, but it will not be in fact.

      3. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        pcunix, you make a great grasshopper.

  8. 0
    china manposted 5 years ago

    I can agree with both Mark and PC - and you guys are actually saying the same thing to all intents and purposes.

    However the logic and reality issue is the point I would say.  I don't agree that subjective reality is only perception but that is by the way, what is happening is that faced with the death of god from Nietsche's observations on society, the only thing that can keep the 'reality' of a god alive is to change the reality itself.

    Before 1500 there 'was' a god, pretty much everyone 'knew' that. The only hope left for them is to turn the clock of society back - and that requires defeating the forces that killed god in the first place, science and reason.  So you are arguing from two different realities, not having the same argument between them.

    This process is not confined to the sheeple that we meet here, it is actively being pursued as a mission way up the line.  They send their Professors of Philosphy here to guest lecture, and what we get is a contortion of old thinking twisted to form some kind of pseudo rational base for pre-determination.  I gave a series of guest lectures at the same places and one of them involved the evolution of christian art. When I went to the big online collections (Rothschilds and Co) I found all the relevant art gone, although at that time the placeholders were still there.  It was extremely difficult to find the christian art that shows it evolution from 2D to 3D ANYWHERE.  I havent looked lately but I would surmise it will be the same situation.
    Many other things are happening of this nature that are not noticed unless you especially go looking for something.

    I have come to the conclusion that 'they' are trying to push us back to the dark ages where we can be controlled by fear, ignorance and superstition and 'they' will go back to the comfortable and all powerful positions of lords ladies and bishops. And of course this time around 'they' will be the only ones privy to real knowledge and so not so easily overcome as last time around.

    Reality is what you make it.   And the sheeple are living proof of the possibility.
    and superstition

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are speaking of political reality, which, while certainly extremely important and a very worthy topic to discuss, is not related to the suspension of logic and the brushing away of physics implied by a "god".

      I think we SHOULD talk about what you brought up here, but perhaps in another thread?

  9. Pcunix profile image92
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    OK, I think I've had enough of the nonsense from the OP.

    I would like to explore the deeper problems of atheists - even famous atheists like Dawkins - falling into the world of magic, but that may have to wait for another day because of the peanut gallery.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm ready for it pcunix. Start the forum. Let the games begin. I mean really, you feel the need to post comments in religious forums, in an attempt to berate believers. Which says to me, hey let's all have some fun on every forum. No reason why a different opinion can't be shared when an atheist wants to have a conversation on something he feels strongly about. See ya there.

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Pointing out your faulty logic is berating you?

        How droll.

        Sorry, JC - you aren't interesting enough.  Worse, you are obnoxious.  You are on my "ignore" list now.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That was the intended result of this forum. Now I just have to irritate a few more that seem to constantly berate and I'll be home free on Hub Pages. Woohoo.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, silly one: you won't drive us out. We'll just know to ignore YOU specifically.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Drive you out? Who said drive you out? Anyway,i knew you couldn't really ignore me. I'm glad. I have too much fun with your posts.

          2. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A genuine Christian then - Close minded and antagonistic. LOL

            No wonder your religion causes so many wars. sad

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's Lorraine to you Mark. LOL. Me antagonistic. That's a hoot. The only war I could fight was with the Stooge gods. And they'd probably won. Their prophet is pretty tough.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I never said you could fight. I said you were antagonistic. I wonder if you read anything?

                Oh well. I certainly appreciate peopel of your ilk.

                So - thanks. wink

          3. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            roll

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And smile Cagsil. Theres not going to be a war. Mark appears to open and close with that line. I don't think he means it literally.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I take it you have never read any history books either. Of course there is going to be a war. Your religion practically guarantees it. How much ill will and antagonism can you spread without causing one?

                I am going with Jeebus v Mo, the Final Smack down.

                Wait until your population (Ireland?) reaches about 20% Muslim. wink

                The Catholics have only just stopped shooting Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps the Muslim "threat" will be what unites them finally?

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes Mark, men fight. I've noticed they always find a reason to do it. Should we hate all men?

  10. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    I assume we are not going to get over this Logic thing any time soon although quite why the concept is so hard for some people to grasp is beyond me.

    The argument that a belief in God defies logic is fairly simple to understand, the simple process of logical reasoning demands facts to support any argument or theory being put forward.  Since there is not one conclusive piece of evidence to support the existence of any God would tend to support the logical conclusion that God does not exist.
     
    The counter argument that logic cannot disprove the existence of God is senseless since in most instances it is not being argued that there is no God, rather than an unsubstantiated argument is being offered that he does.

    A quick exercise in Logic:   “I Think therefore I am.”    I am here, you can see me, touch me and talk to me therefore logically you cannot deny my existence.

    Now apply the same logic to your God !  When you can grasp the concept that it doesn’t work then, and only then, will you understand logic and how to apply it in a discussion.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Merlin Fraser

      I agree with “I Think therefore I am.”  You are what you think and so on.

      There are so many ways of thinking. More people are screw up more from their lack of emotional intelligence than from their mind.

      I hear more doctors call your In human anatomy, the intestine (or bowel) is the segment of the alimentary canal extending from the mouth via stomach to the anus and, in humans and other ...intestinal part of your body your second brain.

      May people say women think with their hearts, men with their mind and so on? Logic is only one part of the whole and the different ways of thinking

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why over complicate the matter ?

        Logic is merely the separation of the truth from the false.
        It is process not a bodily part !

    2. ThomasE profile image82
      ThomasEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, I disagree with you, Merlin.

      For a long time, people believed there were no black swans. There was absolutely no evidence of black swans. By your understanding of logic, black swans did not exist. Then some bloke sailed some ship to some continent, and we were presented with evidence that black swans exist.

      The swans did not start existing when we first saw them.

      There is no evidence red and purple striped swans exist, but I am an agnostic as to their existence.

      That's my beef with a lot of atheists; they seem almost as deluded as some theists. It seems more of a religious argument with them: we've never seen evidence of God, so obviously God does not exist.

      What a crock of...

      It is a basic proposition of logic that you can't prove something doesn't exist by logic... red and purple striped swans may exist. Equally, it is a basic principal of pragmatic living that until you can find evidence of something you don't give it much thought.

      I'm agnostic and proud of it. I have never seen any evidence of the existence of god. If he or she wants to change my mind, I am sure he can provide some.

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Black swans are not logically impossible.

        All gods ARE logically impossible.

        1. ThomasE profile image82
          ThomasEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, sorry, your logic is simply wrong.

          1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
            Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As I said earlier, we are not going to get over this logic thing any time soon.

            If the people cannot grasp or be bothered to even look up the concept and principles of logic then why do we bother ?

            If your definition of logic is: "All Cats have four feet my dog has four feet therefore my Dog is a Cat.. !"

            Then I doubt we have much more to discuss do you ? 

            There is simply no logical reason to believe a God or gods exist.

            So far we have managed to dismiss the Gods of Egypt, Greece, Rome as well as the Norse Gods so why is that last step so hard to take ?

            Surely the only difference between an Atheist and a Believer is an Atheist just believes in one less God !

            Where that leaves those that sit on the fence I have no idea.

            1. ThomasE profile image82
              ThomasEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I have done university courses that include logic.

              Frankly, I agree we don't have much to discuss, Merlin, because your idea of logic is flawed right at the very basic principals. You just don't understand it.

              It is very much an axiom: the lack of evidence of the existence of something does not mean that thing does not exist.

              Occam's razor says we disregard the existence of god, because there is no evidence of the existence of god.

              it does not say that the absence of evidence of God, means that God does not exist.

              As for PCUnixes logical proof of the nonexistence of God, it is complete hornswaggle. If you replace the world 'Universe' with 'God', it is a proof that the universe doesn't exist.

              It is just absurd.It reminds me of the idiots that used to debate over the number of angels on a pin.

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hardly.  The Universe is not sentient. 

                By the way, if you truly did take logic in university, you should know that "it's complete hornswaggle" refutes nothing.

              2. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But that's not the claim.


                My arguments have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with lack of evidence.  Nothing I said even mentions evidence, and yet you construct this straw man and tear it apart with great noise.

                The straw litters the floor.  My argument still stands, not even touched by you.

              3. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Idiots arguing over angels on a pin?  Ah yes, an indirect ad hominem argument.

                Can you truly do no better, what with your university course in logic and all?

                1. ThomasE profile image82
                  ThomasEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Lets assume a universe exists. Let us further assume that this universe has a physical process called entropy. If we don't want to use mathematics, and certainly not correctly, we might say that entropy is a measure of the usefulness of energy.

                  We observe the physical property increasing consistently in every closed system we can see,

                  Now, we can reason about this universe. Let us assume, the conservation of energy (that is, energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and that the universe is eternal (that is, it has never been created) and that the universe is finite.

                  Why am I assuming these things?

                  If the universe is infinite, that is, it has an unlimited supply of energy, then your argument that God can't exist because, essentially, he would run out of usable energy is nonsense.

                  If energy is not conserved, then your argument is again, nonsense because you do not have a closed system.

                  If the law of entropy does not hold at all places and times in the assumed universe, again, your argument is based on a flawed axiom, and your argument is nonsense.

                  If the universe is created, then both the energy and entropy of the system can't be conserved: at one moment, entropy and energy did not exist, and now it does exist.

                  So, we have a universe that is not infinite, but which is eternal, and according to you god can’t exist. But can WE exist? In the universe we posit, with a finite amount of energy, and a process called entropy, and which has been going on forever, I don’t see how we can exist.
                  Essentially, in order for us to exist, entropy has to be an infinite process, there can’t be any  ground state at which there is no longer useful energy, because the process has been going on for an infinite length of time already.

                  If the universe has already been around forever, we would already be at a ground state.

                  And if entropy is an infinite process, with no ground state, then our logical proof collapses.

                  Now, I don’t think all of these assumptions are correct, I suspect one or more assumption is wrong.  I think as humans most of our understanding of the universe is probably very limited. But I think your logical proof is based on a lot of assumptions that simply can’t hold.

                  And by the way, Merlin started with the ad hominem arguments. 

                  Trying to logically disprove the existence of something is pointless.

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    As you have noted, we don't know if our universe is cyclical and retains its total energy, is cyclical and loses energy on each cycle, or is not cyclical at all.

                    None of that matters because you have completely misunderstood my comments about entropy.

                    Entropy is necessary for the creature to exist. It has to USE energy and it has to be bound by a physics that determines how it CAN use energy.  For this reason alone, it can only be a natural thing, an assemblage of parts arranged so as to use the physical laws that surround it.

                    It plainly didn't CREATE these laws - they had to exist before it could utilize them. It plainly didn't create the parts of itself that store and release energy.   It is no god.

                  2. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I like your post and, to be honest, I was looking for an intelligent argument against the idea of the possibility of something more when I started this forum. Thanks for explaining your reasoning so well.

              4. Merlin Fraser profile image79
                Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Man has been looking for proof of God's existence for how many thousands of years...

                How many more thousands of years do you suggest we wait for the rest of you to catch up with what we already know !!!

                We might as well bring them all back into existence once more, the Geek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse...Hell why stop there we could go back and dredge up all the pre religion ones as well.

                Might as well... There's so many of them we could probably have one each.

                Since time started to mean anything for mankind he has been looking for some sort of supreme being maybe he's hiding somewhere with the Unicorns...

                Get a grip...

                1. ThomasE profile image82
                  ThomasEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There's an old myth some people had, where at the end of the universe there is a mountain the size of mount Olympus, and every year, a small bird sharpens its beak by scraping it against the rock. If that rock, and that bird, really existed, and you looked for god for all the time, and you didn't find any proof that he existed...and if, in fact, you looked for god a hundred thousand times longer than that... and didn't find him

                  It still would not be proof that god does not exist.

                  Replace 'God' with 'Purple and Red striped swan' and the same thing holds.

                  Note, I didn't say either God or Purple and Red striped swans exist, I merely said I am agnostic about the existence of either, and see no proof of the existence of either.

                  1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
                    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry but that is not a logical definition of anything just an excuse to justify sitting on the fence.


                    It is not logical to look for proof of the non existence of anything. 

                    If something comes along to prove the existence of something I previously thought did not exist I will admit to being wrong but I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to prove something doesn't exist.

              5. Beelzedad profile image61
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Really? I would suspect that Occam's Razor would say to look for the simplest explanation when all things are equal. Gods only tend to add complexity to already simpler explanations. smile

                1. ThomasE profile image82
                  ThomasEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, that's the simple explanation, Beelzedad (cool name by the way). Occam's razor is that in all probability, out of all the hypotheses we have that fit the evidence, the simplest explanation is most useful.

                  Occam's razor is a rule of thumb.

                  Sometimes the complex explanation is the correct one.

                  (For example, scientists went through a period of debating whether light was a particle or wave. Some scientist called newton sorted that one out. He gave the simplest answer that fitted the observations. Then some numpty invented a new experiment that showed light exhibited properties of both).

                  The  difference between an agnostic and an atheist is... in my opinion... that an atheist has hit on a settled answer. All the observations I have are that God doesn't exist. And yet, I am still prepared to run any test I can think of to find out I am wrong.

                  The same basic principal applies with Entropy... I doubt any scientist in the world thinks it is wrong. But that shouldn't stop us running experiments to try to falsify it.

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I have carefully explained why you are wrong. So far, all of your responses have been veiled insults and straw men.

                    Do you actually have anything to refute me?

                  2. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, that's because Newton was entirely wrong about light, he thought the speed of light was infinite but is instead, invariant.

                    Hence, the simplest explanation for the observations is the duality of light.

                    And again, adding gods to explanations only tends to complicate the explanations when simpler explanations are already available that don't add complexity.



                    One of the most powerful aspects of the scientific method is that of falsifiability. smile

      2. aguasilver profile image87
        aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You could say the same thing about televisions, if you were standing in 1800 the whole concept would seem bizarre!

        Likewise I remember thinking back in the late 70's that it would be nice to have a communication device that would allow me to sit on the beach in Spain and do business on the other side of the world. It was of course a delusional desire for an object that nobody could prove was possible.... now it runs my life for me.

        Of course even today I meet folk who refuse to use a cellphone or laptop computer, but they tend to be too fixed in their ways, and I guess they will never benefit from these things as I have.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again, "bizarre" is not logically impossible.  Neither is "unexpected", "beyond present technology" or any other thing you'd like to toss out.

          This is just another attempt at misdirection. Adress the argument, not strawmen you construct for your own amusement.

  11. 0
    china manposted 5 years ago

    I understand that physics, matter and energy are only as they are IN the universe - I think it was Hawkins who said this - but not sure.  Your argument only applies to 'inside' this universe, or part of this universe.  The other possibilities are 'outside' of the universe or all of the universe.  If the possible god was all of the universe then it would be the universe and we would be a part of that god the same as any other part.  If the possible god was outside of the universe then it would not exist relative to us.  I seem to remember the argument going something like that.

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, it applies outside.

      OUR physics applies only inside.  Some OTHER physics applies outside.

      A physics is still necessary. The creature must use energy - must obtain it, must store it, must release it.  As noted in my original argument, there are two aspects to this necessity that preclude the "god".

      The first is that, being bound by some physics, it plainly cannot be a "god". It is quite natural, no matter how it came together (evolution or chance assemblage).

      The second is that it plainly must exist in the confines of the physics that allows it action and thought. It cannot violate that physics any more than you can.

      1. 0
        china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But outside of the universe is supposed not to have our physics, if there are other universes out there they will even have their own time - so you cannot say it must anything in relation to the physics that apply in this universe.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again: it doesn't matter one bit if it is OUR physics. It is SOME physics, because you cannot have anything but absolute and perfect chaos without it. 

          SOME physics binds your creature wherever you put it. Turtles all the way down doesn't remove logic.

          1. 0
            china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            so it could possibly exist in absolute and perfect chaos ?

            I don't see what is hard about that, just take a look at my desk dogdammit !

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Pure chaos is not disorder.  It is the absence of rules, the absence of physics.

              To take a simple analogy: can your computer function if its logic gates just randomly react to inputs?

              1. 0
                china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                not in this universe, and the absences you speak of are only absences of what we know, maybe chaos operates differently.  And what is to say that outside the universe is chaos, maybe chaos is just how we see the lack of order against the ordered bits of our own universe ?

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You are missing the point.

                  We might indeed mistake order for chaos. That doesn't change the reality that a sentient being cannot exist without some physics behind it.

                  1. 0
                    china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I would say that it is you that is missing the point,  by imposing the physics of our universe on 'outside' the universe. 
                    We have no way of knowing what constitutes 'outside', maybe there are no physics, or matter or energy as we understand it.

        2. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          China Man,

          I agree with you completely. But, I would rather say that other existences could have different time (physics). Slightly different connotation.

    2. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, the problem is that "the outside of the universe" is a meaningless concept and I suspect Hawkins would not argue such. smile

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would agree, but such a concept is not LOGICALLY impossible, so we have to address it.

        It doesn't change anything, though: turtles all the way down or not, any creator must be a product of some physics.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Pcunix

          I read what you sent me, where dose it lead I don't know.

          Man makes a mistake he adjust it , When there is too much of Mankind's abuse sometimes, the people change it and so on...such as life,  Why not accept what is for ogic and scienceare  just another branch or two in the tree of life.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Fine. You don't understand. Leave it be and be happy. I have no problem with theists who are kind to other people.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Labels do not stick well on me, Based on definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Either you positively assert that there is a god or you self proclaim you are atheist with great lack of positive proof that God dose not exist

              I’m just tolerates of all gods in regards the universe as a manifestation of God, I would not dare to claim to know 99% darkness like religion do. Most theist think of the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs can not based it solely on reason or logic.

              Pc there is not a enough logic or reason to make it all good sense to me neither. Yet, why be so against theist, the world will change itself with reason anyways, no matter what you or I think, accept what is, is and  of the natural phenomena magic like energy, luck and most of all love. For love can only be proven by actions, show me the 3% atheist love greater than the 97% so called theist love.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You would be right that actions tell the story, however, your comparison here is wrong. Look at the world and tell me that you can see the "love" theists provide to the world, considering 66% of the world holds a selfish belief in a god, while the rest does not.

                By what you said- it would be the theists' actions that prove they do not know or understand love, much less anything else.

        2. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh! Lets add potentialities without bodies as a possible existence. Stand back pcunix because I am going to shout "SPIRIT!".

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Shout it all you want - there is no such thing.

  12. Pcunix profile image92
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    OK, now that Cags and I have danced a bit, it's time to get back.

    I'm waiting from certain admissions from someone who said my arguments reminded him of idiots arguing, and Cags is waiting for a certain someone to give his understanding of the Einstein quote he trotted out so proudly.

    Imagine us sitting back, arms folded, tapping our feet impatiently.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you are waiting impatiently. I'm waiting patiently. lol

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I stand correctly.  Imagine Cagsil resting comfortably while I pace about waving my arms and cursing.

  13. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago

    pcunix, freedom cost. One must stand for something among the millions of citizens. You either exist in a sheltered environment or is exposed to a dangerous or stressful environment. Popular belief systems come and go with the blowing of the wind. Worldviews that have considered the fluidness of this world and have accepted a faith in God have strong foundations.

    Cigsil, faith in self is very good, except for the fact that one person is no match for the forces in the world. You may have been blessed with a strong support group, but even this is prone to change adversely. Even the US shall change into another world entity; the Earth and sun is changing; the universe is change, and neither of us have the power to stop it. Your are fragile as a jelly fish. The potential stress in the world can crush any individual or small group. Faith in God is the answer.

    1. Woman Of Courage profile image59
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      wikmiers77, Agreed.

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed? With what?  I can't even begin to parse that. I have node what he us even trying to say.

        Would you care to explain it?

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, I've read through the forum and, you fought the good fight in this one, but I have to tell you; the theists that came in kind of walked the dog, don't you think?  Read their posts.  Logic, emotion, and a deeper sense that they have come to their belief through intropective thought. That's the spirit you need if you are going to win this battle. I have faith in you pcunix.  You can do better.  You will do better.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            A theist never introspects. If they had a rational thought run through their minds, it would scare the living daylights out of them. lol

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              OK.  Now that was way harsh. You don't fool me with that emoticon.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Fool you with a smiley? Are you stating that I wasn't laughing at the time I stated by comment? I would hope not. I was actually laughing quite hard when I posted it.

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I know.  And i'm going to tell you something you probably don't want to hear.  I think you have a good head on your shoulders.  You are coming from a good place. For you.  I don't know why everyone doesn't let everyone feel comfortable coming from a good place for them too. That's all. People should be happy and everyone that runs around belittling others don't seem happy. All of our beliefs are silly in some ways from the perspective of another. If we aren't willing to laugh at ourselves too, then it just seems a little miserable. Atheists, theists, agnostics are nothing more than people that have come to conclusions from what they have seen and felt in life.  They're all right.

                  1. Woman Of Courage profile image59
                    Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi just_curious, Anyone who feels a need to belittle and insult others is not happy. They are miserable. What a shame for a person to behave in that manner to make themselves feel good. God bless you.

          2. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not trying to win any battles. I'm simply amusing myself and helping isolated atheists.  The theists and the silly agnostics are just an excuse to be here.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So you're having fun. I'm sincerely glad to hear that. There were moments of doubt there for me.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                aren't we all having fun here? I think forums are for people who want to avoid working.

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  One would hope. I'm new here. Haven't seen many of your posts, but like them all so far.

                2. wilmiers77 profile image60
                  wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think I love ceciliabeltran.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    big_smile you're sweet.

    2. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Funny you can't see that your own popular belief system will someday go blowing in the wind, too. smile

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but haven't your read, mine shall rise again.

        Is Christianity popular now?

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It used to be, but is now on the decline. Haven't you noticed it's already being blown into the wind? smile

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Christianity has never been the most popular in any society; only a few are chosen. The road to eternal life is narrow and straight and few find it. The road to hell is broad and it is crowded.
            Christianity historically has needed only one candle which in turn begin to light other candles. Christianity historically has grown again and again facing mighty adversities. It should not have survived against all odds. The fire of the Spirit shall not be quenched.

    3. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's nothing but fear talking. Change is good.
      Actually, faith in a god is selfish, so I guess that makes you selfish. Thank you for letting everyone else know it. wink

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil

        You believe most in love,

        For each and all selfish monothecal religion condition for love can not possibleily be shared by the vast majority of the people living on earth.  For each one carries so much quilt, jealously and arrigance that is selfish and not healthy signs of love for me neither.  There is NO other way to please God from any one religion for the vast majority.

        Only BY the church of love in our hearts, which can not be selfish. We can explore phenomena magic like energy, luck and most of all love. That's why I offered the job to Cagsil, yet he has not accepted it yet, what the  matter Cagsil, too much work?

        I believe God exists, for everyone is God, so how can this form of love be a selfish God love. Not all form of believers are selfish, when every spirit of love,  equals the belief in god, then all love can believed in god.

        If God is love he cannot be selfish. If God is selfish he cannot be love

        Cagsil would ask no one to  worship him, how unselfish is that?




        Labels do not stick well on me, Based on definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Either you positively assert that there is a god or you self proclaim you are atheist with great lack of positive proof that God dose not exist

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you have a point or do you like to hear yourself talk?
          This statement makes not sense. Exploring "phenomena" and "magic" are two different things. Luck isn't explored. Love isn't explored either.
          You offered me the job? roll Last time I checked, I don't require you to offer anything of the kind. But, thank you anyways.
          Nice to see, you continue to manipulate the word "god", just like believers.
          Nonsense. Any belief in a god is selfish. Therefore, no love comes from selfish people.
          Again, continue the manipulation of the word "god" isn't going to gain you any ground to stand on.
          I wouldn't even ask or tell no one to worship me. It wouldn't even be words that would ever escape my mouth.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well! No adventure or exploring magic, well,

            I only assumed you would not want to be worshiped, would you?

            Sand castle and snow sculpture contest and snow playground all started out as a joke then turned into millions of dollars. I pioneered it into full time jobs and then into new industries, People who are light can be very serious about life and pleasures businesses

            self proclaim atheists think they give positive assert that there is no god along with a great lack of positive proof. If you want, call the vast majority of people selfish because they believe in God from all views shapes and forms, knock yourself out

            What do I care, if you don't care about god, your are not going off any cliff anyways.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's irrelevant, considering I already answered this question. Why are you posing it again?

              All available knowable knowledge in existence and the words of those who claim a god to exist, prove there is no god. What more do you want? hmm

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                what it proves is that there is no bearded man in the skies molding people out of clay. as for G-d, that's another story. you cannot disprove or prove a metaphor.

                1. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No need to disprove or prove a metaphor. Only to make sense of it. smile

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    agree. does not mean it's not true. It's true in another way.

                2. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, you can't disprove a metaphor. You CAN prove that no god can possibly exist.

      2. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am sure that the record shows the opposite.
        Selfish? The Lord has commanded us to love all; to help the one's that can not help themselves and can not repaid us for such deeds. Have you read the bible?

  14. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago

    Cagsil, proving God by looking outwards into the natural world is not in our foreseen future. God is confirmed within ourselves and it is confirmed to great deeps. It is an individual thing all the way. Individuals experiences God's Spirit and than individual Knows.

    I wish that I could say that with my self confidence (Faith in self only) I have stood strongly and impressively, but I haven't. I am a man that have been knocked down, rolled in the dirt; kicked in the rears, and have gotten up everytime thanks to my faith in my Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. CAGSIL, if  faith in yourself have kept you standing, than I respect that aspect of you. I haven't been nearly as lucky. From my experiences one thing that I know, things aren't what they first appear to be,and that the strongest beliefs in the secular world in which one stands on can be kicked from beneath your feet.

    CAGSIL, if your luck chances for the worst, then rush into the Body of Christ; we are waiting on you.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing more than you excusing your inability. That's all.
      It wasn't your faith that kept you standing, but your own will to survival. It's too bad you cannot see that.
      Excuse you, I would suggest you read my hub on my father, then you might have an example of strength contained within us all. No god required.
      You are not waiting for me. I understand my life, not to mention, I can explain it better than most.

      Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be understood.
      Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be lived.

      Therefore, no god required.

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil, I can see that you haven't experience public scrutiny to much of a degree. But, in case you do, don't seek any psychiatrist; don't try redress in courts; don't seek friends, nor seek parents; just remember what I have expressed unto you..."Come to me". In remembrance of me!

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I haven't experience public scrutiny? Oh really. I have 30,000 posts in this forum. I've published over 140 Hubs that have received over 3000 comments.

          Yet, I've not experience public scrutiny.

          Are you even bothering to read what I post? WOW! roll

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Cagsil, I was referring to life, a much broader extent of public scruity. Maybe I should say a much deeper and comprehensive form of public scrutiny...life remolding kind from castration (stripped nude), taking your original thoughts, verging on threatening of your life and property by people. This is my personal experiences. "My inabilities?", exposed to 20% of the public scrutiny expressed above, you will "Come to me". In remembrance of me!

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This sounds like the "There are no atheists in foxholes" silliness.

              If only we had experienced the terrible things you have, we too would see that some fantasy god is the only answer!

              No, we wouldn't.

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pcunix, I am sure that you are speaking to early. I found it, alone with a few others, very compelling.

            2. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You have no logic or rational in that statement. But, good day.

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Caqsil, afraid that all things in life is not layed out logically nor rational. Experience is the Father of knowledge.  Good luck.

                1. 0
                  china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No - education is the father of knowledge, experience is the mother.  And lack of education is at the root of the ridiculous beliefs of creationism, fundamental religions, and bigotry.

                2. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, you've not addressed my other post to you. Therefore, you're dismissing it. We're done. You've nothing offer anyone of any substance. Much less anything else either.

  15. Pcunix profile image92
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I think this whole thread really has been interesting in the examples it provides of entrenched thinking and the reactions to arguments that threaten that.

    I have submitted a fairly simple argument. It does not require great intelligence to understand, and yet we've seen people apparently misunderstand it totally. Did they REALLY misunderstand, or is defending what they already "know" so important that they willfully do so?

    We've also seen the usually assortment of ad-hominems, red herrings, arguments from authority and very pretty straw men hacked to pieces with great enthusiasm. 

    Thomas is actually the only person who has given serious effort to a refutation. He's failed so far, but he has tried (though not without some of the noted sins).

    I find it all very interesting and amusing.

    1. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Pcunix, glad to agree with you finally. This forum was enlightening to me. Thanks for your point of views.

    2. Woman Of Courage profile image59
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Pcunix, Yes, this thread is quite interesting. Thomas didn't fail. His responses makes plenty of sense.

      1. Pcunix profile image92
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How so?

        He seems to have given up, actually, and I think he should.

        You are a religious person, I think (apologies if I have confused you with someone else).

        At the end, Thomas seemed to be saying that a natural creature of sufficiently advanced technology is "effectively" a god.

        Do you agree with that?  If it turned out that your creator (the creator of this universe) was actually a third year physics student in some alternate universe, would you worship him or her?

        1. Woman Of Courage profile image59
          Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Pcunix, I was referring to this: Thomas explained to you multiple times about logical-thinking. He stated that you can't prove God doesn't exist logically. He is the first Agnostic to actually admit this truth on the forum. I give him credit for being open to observation, and not coming to a settled conclusion of one viewpoint. Yes, he gave up going around in circles with you. I don't see a reason for him to continue explaining something you disagree with. Hope you enjoyed your dinner.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And you are not listening: I HAVE offered a proof that it cannot exist.  Repeating that I cannot prove it is not refuting the argument.

  16. Pcunix profile image92
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I have to run along now. It's my poker night, so we'll have a very early dinner.

    I hope that Tom has not given up and I hope that WOC will give us her impression of "effective gods" and their value. I hope Cags gets his answer on Einstein and that I get mine on why Einstein has any importance to the original question.

    See y'all later!

  17. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago

    Einstein's worldview as depicted by his quotes, writings, and works in physics is somewhat congruent to the Buddhist faith in the sense that nature is their source of belief. Einstein searched for the after thoughts of a Creator who could never be personal to him in this universe, and the Buddhist receives spiritual enrichment, Karma,from the same universe. In a strange way, we have a Worshiper and an Evangelist in this universe. 

    Science is moving closer to understanding all in the universe, believe it not. Scientist are much closer to the end than the beginning. So, what's after? The persons that we have called crack pots such as Psychics, Spiritualist,and Scientist working to bring out codes from God embedded deep into our subconscience are going to become the leaders in the scientific arena. I brought this point to view to say that we are moving toward the spiritual realm, and knowing God, our Creator, is going to become critical. I don't believe that man will ever not need God. It's my Faith, and I respect your.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is this your attempt at explaining- science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind?

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil, NO, but since you mentioned it, I did have "Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame" in the back of my mind. No use trying to explain any farther to you since you only believe in what is material and not the spirit which is life. You also chose to oppose Einstein's quote. Good luck. Many have tried and many have failed that opposed Einstein, the genius of the 20th century of the entire Earth.  But I am not supprised because you oppose God or is that the great pcunix.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again I ask why you keep holding up Einstein as justification of belief?

          If you think that the opinions of highly intelligent people determine the matter, you should be an atheist, because most of us at or above genius levels are not believers.

          However, religious belief obviously has nothing to do with intelligence as some geniuses ARE believers - a few quite fervently so, in fact. 

          That's why I think you have to look at both evidence and logic. The evidence is plain: there are no gods interfering in our daily lives or responding to prayers.  Various logical arguments (including the one I have presented here) speak against any such creature. 

          But at the end of the day, if you need to believe, so be it. If it helps you and you aren't using it as an excuse to interfere with other people, I have no reason to complain about you. Go and be happy.

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Pcunix, all writers need some supporting footnotes. Who in the world knows me. After all, just_curious opened this forum, "Einstein and Atheism".

            There are different geniouses; those that test high on I.Q. exams, and can execute among people. Employers seek these for obvious reasons. On the other end of the spectrum, we have those geniouses that may not test high on I.Q. exams, but seek a more universal understanding with the humanities in mind.  The people geniouses usually make a lot of money and is very competitive, and usually is not concerned about the humanities to any extend, only self. Pcunix, guess what end of the spectrum Einstein was on, the genious of the 20th century. Guest what end of the genious spectrum you are on?  Please do your research.

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think anyone knows where Einstein was. Did he ever take an intelligence test?

              But again, I ask you - what difference does it make?  Intelligence has nothing to do with religion.

              As to where I fall, I can't actually tell you. I never took an intelligence test that I couldn't drive off scale. But so what? Whether I am a fool or savant, no gods are possible. You aren't arguing with my intelligence, you need to argue with the argument I presented, 

              Assuming you care to argue, of course.

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                pcunix, there is a collection of data from his birth thru his academia, his works in physics, his social works, unto his funeral.

                He was an average student who chased women rather studying. Had failing grade in his first math classes. Showed sparks of brilliants at times. Worked for a patent office. Had lots of time to contemplate and dream.

                Results. Returned with a solution to a immensely complex problem which displayed sheer simplistic beauty.

                With extented info about him, experts naturally placed him in the cosmos alone. I.Q standard?  I am sure that he didn't agree with atheist nor agnostics, but more with the believers excluding a personal God.
                So, Beelzedad can not crap in his pants.

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No person of intelligence elevates Einstein quite that much. Other people of his time and before worked on the same problems. Like everyone else, he stood on the shoulders of others and had the benefit of contemporaries work.   I'm not belittling his contributions - just pointing out that he gets a bit more credit from the common man than he actually deserved.

                  But again, Einstein is unimportant in this context. I don't really care if he was a rational atheist or not: that changes nothing. No god is possible, no god exists and all the theist babbling of the past ten thousand years can't change that.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Very well said.

                  2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Pcunix

                    Your opinion an other opinion just likes everyone else, no better not worst in this case. The only difference is, that you are among the small amount of people who think self assuring (3%) that God dose not exist.

                    It's when the earth that is 99% unknown to each and every one of us. For one, to know extremely little about something and at the same time claim to know everything about it, can amount to a lot of unnecessary suffering for your self and others around self.

                    It's the same for people who claim to know God absolutely on the other extreme also, the more elusive and evasive God becomes, mainly monotheistic type.

                  3. wilmiers77 profile image60
                    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your atheistic belief with a dash of physics and lots of new age philosophy will probably hold for you and a modest group of believers, but I have serious doubts that it will hold long among the masses. Belief in God shall rise again for the good.
                    Belief in God is not the result of an intellectual exercise, but rather a revelation, an experience that changes a person's life forever.

          2. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Pcunix, following up on the genius intellect, I would suspect that you would consider Apache Chief Geronimo to be dumb or crazy. firstly, he doesn't say much, and when he did speak it was fundamental or a refer to the Great Spirit in the sky. Let a people genius be in the tribe for awhile who talks brillantly with many ideas; this one would probably lost his head. In other words, genius is relative at the people level, but there is commonality among all universal geniuses who appears not to be very smart. The spirit in the sky could very well save your head. I never underestimate faith when it come to the masses.

            Yes, high intelligent person doesn't mean giving him the "green light ahead".

        2. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And, you've chosen to lie about Einstein. Much worse. smile

        3. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, let me clue you in on something Wilmiers- I lack no spirituality to my life. My understanding of life is directly related to understanding LOVE. Love comes from our heart, which has nothing to do with a fictional god.

          As for the quote of Einstein- Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind, just so you can gain some understanding-

          Science without Religion is lame- means that when you apply scientific method, you do so with a ritualistic manner, by test and observe, and record. Then test, observe and record.

          That is religiously testing, observing and recording the results, to ensure accuracy.

          Religion with out Science is blind- meaning that if you simply believe, without testing or observing or recording, then the method isn't consistent nor is it accurate- Therefore it's blind.

          I hope that clears up something for you.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Cags,even I have to call  you on that.  You can certainly interpret those bare words that way, but there is no possible reading of the context in which they were actually written that would justify it.

            Sorry. You are wrong on this.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I only explained in simple terms PC. Nothing more. wink


              Edit: The part I left out and I apologize for it- Religion is based on morals/ethics and if Science doesn't have ethics, then it's likely to be just like religion- blind faith.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Cagsil

                Is morality essentially tied to religion so that the term ethic is a contradiction in terms? Can morality survive without religion? I think so, love and self ethics can be sufficient.

                Intentional behavior in religion twisted moral can do very bad things without sufficient reason. I can’t live with my own sense of immoral/ethics because I can never achieve a truly good life by causing needless pain...

                1. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Original understanding of morals came from religion. It's the first time any morality was defined, via Jesus' teachings. There were no morality before his teachings.
                  Of course, morality can stand on it's own now. It's now the understanding of the human conscience.
                  I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here.
                  This is understood, as long as one understand their conscience.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is fair enough, Jesus did bring healthy morals for the people of his time period of great hardship.

                    People today have much higher on conscious mind level as they live three times longer than when Jesus lived. People today know basically what is wrong or right/ good or bad

                    If you keep telling a person never to think about blue, what happens? that person can only think about blue. Much like the biblical book that keeps telling the people about the rules, then what happens is Christian end up in jail greater (per capita) than any other group of people.

                  2. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There was no morality before Jesus?

                    Cags, you are so incredibly wrong I can't even imagine what is wrong with you.

              2. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Explained what? You made a really unbelievable  statement about the origins of morality.

                As morality is seen in apes, it is quite reasonable to assume it was seen in the very earliest humans - long before any written evidence.

                I doubt civilization could have happened without it. Jesus (if he ever existed) had nothing to do with it.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Unless your lived and had met Jesus, monkey man or cave man, by first hand experience, you are just giving me third hand theory or information

                  I would rather sort out from second handed information or theory in history from its writing. Written down has 80% better Memory retention from first hand word of mouth.

                  The hard part is sorting out the ethics from the many wrong translation

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You need a book to tell you how to be ethical and moral?

                    I don't.  Maybe that's what is different about the religious: you need instructions for what should be innate.

                2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Pcunix

                  When you or I, see an event with our own eyes that is a first hand experience. When we both record it down on paper, that memory retentions is 80% better than by person to person by mouth.

                  Second hand information comes from reading what was written in History a few thousand years ago.

                  Now the third hand information is recording things from millions and billions years ago from no person having first hand experience of being there.

                  The problem with the Bible is wrong translations

                  John Lennon quotes “I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?"

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But no one who ever knew this apocryphal person ever wrote anything down on paper.

                    That all happened many years later. We know for certain that much of it is false: nobody ever raised the dead, nobody ever turned water into wine or walked on unfrozen water. Those things never happened, so why should I believe that any of the more plausible things attributed to this supposed person ever happened either?

                    It makes far more sense that various tall tales about sundry preachers were mixed in with complete fabrications to weave yet another "god" story. That the story bears marked similarity to stories from other cultures and other times makes it even more suspect.

                    Some preacher named "Jesus" probably existed. He may have even played some real part in some of the stories, but the stories are assuredly not his story.

          2. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh my God! Cagsil, I wouldn"t advice you to take your belief in this matter on the road. Please stay safely in your nursery.

    2. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting, without skipping a beat, you continue to support your fabrications. Very dishonest. 



      Yes, I'm sure you'd love to believe that nonsense, but that isn't likely at all, seems like just another religious fantasy. smile

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Beelzedad, it is you that refuse to believe it, and is becoming vicious and slanderous with me. Have you found a website(s)  which have various quotes of Einstein as a quest speak, interviews, dinner parties, ect., ect.
        Believe me, I read those referred to and many more. I was somewhat surprised. These quotes have been around for over 60 years and none have been refuted. I have seen all Einstein quotes refuted within hours at this time. Test them out, and you shall see how unlikely your accusations are.
        I don't make the news, I just read it.

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Funny how you now believe that considering all I've done is expose your fabrications. That appears to have caused much anger and embarrassment on your part.



          I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, but all I was able to glean was that I'm supposed to just believe you.

          "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

          -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

          smile

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Beelzedad,

            Science has never seriously been charge with undermining morality. Science has been charged with endangering humanity. If egotistical persons are given free range with the belief that all is in the human sphere, fellow, we are heading toward destruction. Please recall that the count down clock to self destruction by man was created by secular professionals at the top of their field. If you have checked the time on that clock, it is at 3 minutes remaining of the 24 hours, scaled down from cosmic magnitude.   

            I recall that the Nazis were highly educated and leaders in all fields of endeavor...low and behold they decided to kill all Jews on Earth. Boy, did they have social ties! They were very sympathetic toward the Nationalistic State of Germany; they even love it!

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So you want to be a Luddite?

              Without science, you'd still be hunting game, shivering in caves, dying from infectious disease and so on.

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Are you replying to my comment concerning the Nazis? Its like I put out cherries and got back potatoes. I must ask because I evidently gave you totally the wrong impression. I am a science major. I swim in technology.

                I was getting at the fact that science must not replace faith in God, but must be subservient to the body of people and support the faith or else danger lay ahead. If the bridal is taken off of technology, it can quickly become a monster. We must control it.

                If the government is without a concept of God, than how do you tell the authority that it's wrong concerning a determination placed on you. They are god. One can not say I belong to God and have freedoms to purse happiness and be supported by a body of Believers in what you have said. Who is going to grab the hammer of oppression by the authority? You guys take so much for granted. People had to die for the freedoms that  we have now. You guys have a false sense of security. You are certain underestimating the power of faith. Think, why did hitler create a substitute religion of mysticism, a puppet Jesus Christ, and barbarianism. Because religion was his opponent resisting his becoming a dictator.

                People must tame the horses of technology, keep them bridled, and ride them, not let them stampede and destroy us.

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  We don't need gods for morals. I agree that we must temper science with sense, but religion isn't the path for that.

                  1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    This maybe true, but we certainly need God to help us keep morals. God has been overwhelmingly successful so far. Do you know of any other standard barrier with more success?
                    I believe in separation of church and state; I believe in a personal relationship with a living God. I vote accordingly. I act accordingly.

            2. Beelzedad profile image61
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              How? Almost everything you have and use today is a result of science, your computer, your internet connection, this forum, not to mention advances in medicines and technologies that allow us to live longer healthier lives. The list goes on and on. You take advantage of all these things. Are you to tell me here and now that you take advantage of all these things because it is endangering you?



              And yet, once again, you take full advantage of all the "human sphere" has to offer you.

              That would be the same as lobbying for the banning of dangerous pesticides while happily spraying them all over your garden.



              That's nice, so what? 



              Are you serious? You're now using the example of what the Nazis did to support your claim against education?

              Is that all ya got? lol

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I put out cherries and got back potatoes. I am sorry if I gave you totally the wrong impression. I am a science major. I swim in technology, but science must not display faith in God. If one believes that science is all we need within the human sphere, than that person is ignorant to the powers to be, and think that all that he has learned is static, instead of being very tentative and fluid with much flux.

                "All we need is...?"  Education being one them. Education is very good! But it is not an element of what is going to replace the need for faith in God. Education can be used to destroy you or build you up. We have power hungery leaders in our "human sphere". They will stop at nothing to attain it if given a chance. Be not naive nor be deceived. "Monsters are real; ghost are real, and they live inside of us, and sometime they win." Steven King

                1. Beelzedad profile image61
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow! The levels believers will stoop. Clearly, from your posts, it is obvious you are not a science major, unless one that works in the creationist museum.



                  Again, all I can say is, WOW!

                  1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    GOT YA!

              2. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Beelzedad,

                The Einstein quotes that  you could not swallow as being true will most likely suddenly appear in your face and swallow you in the near future. Existing forum.

                1. Beelzedad profile image61
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sure, you just keep fabricating and believing that, and keep showing us your lack of morals and ethics. lol

      2. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Beelzedad,
        All those that don't know the Lord feels and says what you have said, but those that find the Lord makes a 180 degree turn around, and laughs at their previous self while telling anyone that would listen. They think that their old self was a joke.

        If you won't listen to millions of person with the same testimony, than the chains of this world have you bound very tightly. Let it go, open to Him! Live!

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We are living.

          We don't need fantasy. You do. That's fine, but it really is fantasy.

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Atheist and agnostic are like dare devils as I have been in the past. They don't see or hear the big bad bear so they walk the grounds calling others chicken because they would come out of their tree.

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is no bear. You cower for no reason.

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I forget to add that there was a furious bear in the area killing people not seen and not hear at the time. Atheist and agnostics wants us to come out of our tree and sleep on the ground. Better.

                This analogy is going to rile you to the point that you would fight the bear. Religion is the higher safe view.

                Let's face it, faith behaves as a cohesive for any society. Our society is one step from madness.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  faith is a stepping stone to understanding. you don't stick to faith, you use it as a point to take a leap into grasping the unknown.  the study of the universe began with faith.

                2. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No bear was ever seen. Just a book full of fantasies about bears that never lived.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    PC, fantasies are subjective reality. They are not useless. They are just misunderstood.

              2. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I forget to add that there was a furious bear in the area killing people not seen and not hear at the time. Atheist and agnostics wants us to come out of our tree and sleep on the ground. Better.

                This analogy is going to rile you to the point that you would fight the bear. Religion is the higher safe view.

                Let's face it, faith behaves as a cohesive for any society. Our society is one step from madness.

        2. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Someday I may become insane and begin to believe in myths and superstitions and hear voices in my head and see gods swirling around me battling with devils, but it isn't today. 



          Funny how you don't see that. Yes, all there is are the testimonies of people and no gods.

          It's also funny how the testimonies of Muslims or Sikhs, for example, do not even enter the picture. smile

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I will meet you most of the way with that one.

            I do find the little voice in my head, works,

  18. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Pcunix wrote ...
      The rules are the physics of the Universe, Jerami. They are what makes things work.

    = = = = = =
    ME
       and as I ask,  Are these rules of the universe to be considered to be a logic mechanism ?   And If not, why not?
       And if they are? what governs them?

    ==============================================
    Pcunix wrote ...
      You aren't going to play the "god is physics" card, are you?  It doesn't work, Jerami - if you aren't destroying the god by redefinition, you are simply pushing it down the line - a "turtles all the way down" argument. Somewhere your creator has to stand firm and it is there that it must be a natural product of physics.
    - - - - - - - -

    ME
       And this is true cause it is written where?

    ==================================================
    As you have jumped to this so quickly, dare I assume you admit defeat on the other points? Is this your only desperate gambit?

    = - = - = - = - =

      Me
      You can asume as you wish!  But I don't see it that way.

      As I described earlier, I do not follow your premise nor even if I did, I think you are jumping the river with your conclusion. 
       I'll give it some more thought and attemp to follow hoe you connected the dots,  And maybe ? 
      I will at least understand how you made the conclusion that you did;  whether I can agree with it or not ?? 
       I'll have to wait and see.

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, it's really not difficult. I know you don't WANT to follow it and I know that you will refuse to ultimately, but let's not descend to nonsense.

      Your god can't be a unity. It has to be made of simpler things.  You can't get away from that.

      Those parts have to have some underlying physics to make them work. The creature cannot have created either the parts or the physics - they came before it, obviously.

      It is no god. It is a fraud or insane.  Fortunately for us, it's rather obvious that it doesn't exist anyway, but that's a different story.

      If your "god" did exist, it lied to you.  It would have to be a natural being, just like you.

  19. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    "Can a unity store information?  Does it not at least require a duality,the state of zero and one to store information? If you can show me that a unity can store information, my argument falls right then.

    If you can't, then I ask you if any decision making can be made with only zeros and ones? I assert that it cannot, that you need a mechanism, even if it is just a simple NAND gate.

    If you can show me how decisions can be made without a logic mechanism, my argument falls there.

    If you cannot do those things, your next task would be to show how a logic mechanism is not dependent upon rules.  I will stipulate that the rules do not have to be completely dependable, but they must be mostly so.  Can you show me how a decision apparatus can function without somewhat dependable rules that govern its function?  If you can, once again you have destroyed my proof.

    If you have reached this point without being able to refute any of the above, your god cannot be possible. It can only be a natural creature, composed of things that existed before it did and completely dependent upon the physics (the rules)  that controls those things.  It is no god, and if it says that it is, it is a fraud or insane."

    this is what you said...

    and what did I say,

    what is god? god is part of myth, and myths are reflections of natural phenomenon that are based on real things.

    So, where is the conflict. Are we not agreeing? I'm just saying that this does not prove that god does not exist. you can't say that a mythic figure does not exist because you are talking about concrete things. myth obviously exists. aren't we talking about it?


    "If you can show me that a unity can store information"

    the human brain. 

    You : "Can you show me how a decision apparatus can function without somewhat dependable rules that govern its function?  If you can, once again you have destroyed my proof."

    You are speaking of emergence wherein a phenomenon cannot be observed until you hit critical mass. Examples would be facebook, glass etc. grain that eventually form cones.   this is anecdotal and can be used both ways.

    consciousness can emerge from what seems to be random but fractals will show you that they are only re-emerging, which means they existed before albiet in different scales. so are they natural maybe, but did they emerge from chaos and organized? how can we tell? we have not yet seen the edge of infinity.


    so once again. not proof. anecdote.

    1. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Dragons, Leprechauns and the Easter Bunny are also myths. Please explain what "natural phenomenon that are based on real things" they represent? smile

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        dragons, dinosaurs (or scary primitive impulses)
        leperchauns, cheats
        easter bunny, spring.

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, but dinosaurs were not known to exist back then.

          And, if you took the time to actually find out the origins of those myths, you might begin to understand why you're assertions are wrong. smile

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            well I don't really know and neither do you. Dragons are persistent in world mythology representing something concrete in the psyche.

            I can't really help you here if you don't see it. You clearly don't get it, it's not that simple. the fact that it persists is what is making it mythology. A lot of stories like this are forgotten. the ones that come back have come represent something internal, an aspect of the psyche. So you can dispute it all you want, you'll still be quoting from the 1950's. or maybe earlier.

            1. Beelzedad profile image61
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's as easy as one two three. In other words, doing the homework.



              I'm sure you'll continue to believe that.



              Yes, I can see how offering that to the argument really helps your case in trying to explain yourself.



              Or, the fact that it never occurred and is a made up story is making it mythology, by definition, in fact.



              Not necessarily. One has to analyze each myth on a case by case study. Painting them all broadly with your personal assertions is hardly valid.



              And, while I won't stoop to your level of childish insults, it is apparent that no amount of "dispute" is going to pull you away from embracing your personal assertions.

              Oh well. smile

    2. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A human brain is not a unity. You don't even know what the word means, apparently.

      I am NOT speaking of an emergence. I am speaking of simple decisions. You cannot make decisions without logic.

      Please quote properly. Mixing my words with yours is quite annoying.

  20. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Well I don't know how to box it obviously.

    but please define what you mean about the human brain not being a unity.

    Define what you mean. The word has many meanings and can be used in a multitude of ways.

    See we can go on and on and on and it will still be anecdote. because as it is, you can claim I don't understand something when I think you're not understanding yourself. I am looking from a macroscopic  perspective and you are probably doing the microscopic to describe a macrocosm. It is really silly.

    But all this is cyclical so, you cannot say I can prove that there is no god when god is an X. there is an x, what the X is the question that we can't answer that is why we are using X. That's simple logic enough.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      One is a unity. So is zero. You cannot store information in a unity. You need to be able to at least flip states. You can store information in a multi state device, but if something only has one state, you cannot.

      Are you with me so far?

      Now move to making a decision - is the state 0 or 1?  Surely you can see that no number of zeros and ones can make that discernment - you need something else to sense and record the state and, of course, to store the result of the test.  We call that a logic gate.

      You can see that, can't you?  Your god requires at least this much complexity?

      Given that, it plainly is dependent on the storage and the logic gate.  It is dependent upon the physics that allows that gate to work. It cannot have created the physics because it needs the physics to be sentient.

      It is therefore a product, not a god.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        well you are assuming that god in mythology is zero. I could get into the mythology but then we are already talking mythology.

        Zero is not god. It is a value before 1. Anything can be zero, depending on what you are counting. Zero temperature, Ground Zero, Floor Zero. etc. You think that's god?

        Do you know that in Jewish mysticism the universe was created using the humber 2? SO doesn't that seem familiar with what you're saying, you need the concept of duality, a point and and point be to create dimension.

        According to them 1, is spirit or energy. and beyond that is the endless light, nothingness. You can watch this and call it rubbish again, but how else can I tell you you don't understand G-d (the western conception) as a concept in mythology.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HMFD1CG … re=related

        or this:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlHi0vLH … re=related

        or this:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofdJ5sZI … re=related

        tell me it does not ring bells and you're obviously in need to grow more connections in your brain.

  21. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    mermaids -- the teenage girl who is about to put out.

  22. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    From Om mythology...
    "Niether non-being or being was as yet....

    From OM
    the five elements....first space
    from space came air
    from air came fire
    from fire came water
    from water came earth."

    very similar to Jewish mysticism of Luria

    Chaisson's seven ages of the cosmos:

    "most computer models suggest that in the beginning, there was chaos. But frankly, we are sometimes UNSURE if the chaos was in the Universe or is now in our computer codes. Again, the problem is the singularity at the moment of the big bang itself 0 a decidedly  odd state about which mathematicians are currently perplexed. ITS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT SCIENCE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE BANG PRECISELY ZERO TIME. That's why big bang cosmology to popular belief, is not a theory of the big bang per se. Rather, it's a COGNITIVE MAP. or a worldview that aspires to explain events in the aftermath of the big bang."

    1.Particle Epoch- particles creates relationship of forces, paths
    2.Galactic Epoch-Heirarchy of Structures, space-time
    3. Stellar Epoch - Star systems forges elements, the building blocks of chemicals (fire creates water)
    4. Chemical Epoch - water is a chemical, and so is ice and other building blocks of solid matter. (water creates earth)
    then biological then cultural epochs. he predicts a life era where life controls matter.

    I am just saying that your very statement has its counterparts in mythology.

    G-d is more like the entire process of getting to know the "I am" so it is consciousness. But then I don't really know if that's all there is to it, a big part of G-d exists in something Man must invoke within himself.

    For all we know, It could be the is the entire scale of numbers from 0 to infinity, which is = to each other. It is maybe the continuing creative principle of the recurring cycles of creation, the orbits of zero. (again how can you prove that? it is relational more than actual, its a concept that you can only observe if you live through it, which you can't possibly do, you'd have to be G-d to observe G-d) so it's utter folly to say you can disprove a symbol when you don't even know what it really symbolizes. We don't know how the universe started or how we became conscious so to say that you've cracked it is really once again...silly.

    Our minds are representing a unity in all the values as G-d. What it is we don't know. It's an X.

 
working