'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.
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
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.
multiple reincarnations for sure the other not so sure
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.
Since the whole universe is connected and Buddhism believe that too, one way or another, they do
absorbed in source is hinduism aspect...m not sure whether buddist do believe in that...but yes reincarnation is in both...
which one absorbed in source or reincarnation?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You really do NOT read, do you?
How does this shove anything down your throat?
"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."
Explain yourself. It is just another example of the imaginary strawmen you create to complain about.
LOL. Thank you for proving my point. Not succinctly, but proven nonetheless. And, just out of curiousity, are you incapable of independent thought. A lot of your comments seem to be taken from other poster's previous attempts at humor. Why is that?
Castlepaloma, very interesting. I am inclined to agree with you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well,i hope you feel better, now that that's off your chest.
No, I do not feel better. I feel sad that there are so many foolish people still spouting nonsense about the possibility of impossible things.
I expect it from theists, but this nonsense comes from self professed atheists also. It's sad.
Don't beat yourself up over it.these forums go off topic all the time. Say what you feel. I'm listening. You're a black and white kind of guy, in a shades of grey cosmos. Of course you tend to have moments of disappointment. Maybe one day we'll all have it figured out. Then you'll have some company.
An exceptionally well crafted put down - I have changed my perception of you completely !
I hesitate to ask. Is that a bad thing? Oh, and thanks a bunch for posting that. I was pretty sure that would go over his head.
I seriously doubt that you can ever go over my head
No - it is definatley a good thing. Self expression is individuality and the base of diversity which I fully support, even if I do not support the thinking that brought it on
No, I am not black and white.
Did you even bother to read and think about what I said about gods? No, probably not: your black and white mind has already decided that issue, hasn't it?
That's what is most different about us. I question everything and accept nothing as given. That's the essence of true science.
I was an atheist at birth, but as I encountered other atheists, I often heard the "We can't prove" statement made. I realized immediately that of course we cannot prove that our universe was not created by some intelligent being, but I took it farther: what do we need for such a being to exist? Obviously that being does not need to be supernatural, which is a point most theists and any atheists never reach. However, I once again went beyond: what is required of a being to deserve the appellation "god"? I thought about all that, and as described in previous posts here, quickly realized that no such being would ever deserve such a description. Such things are plainly impossible by the most basic logic.
If there actually IS a creator and if that creator ever appears here pretending to be a god of any sort, whether that of our various religions or otherwise, we SHOULD be smart enough to realize that it is lying or insane. That's rather important, especially if the thing is full of "magic" (advanced technology or power from physical attributes) - how we deal with such a thing could determine our fate. However, that's more than vanishingly unlikely, so I won't worry about that any more than I worry about Alpha Centaurean invasions. In fact,as silly as it is, the latter is far more likely!
Well,i completely agree with you.if anything claims to be God, we should all be very suspicious.
At least we can agree on something, though I'd be more than suspicious
By the way, if it claimed to be "a god", we could asume either insanity or fraud. If it claimed to be the god of Christians, Muslims or Jews, I think fraud would be the more likely choice.
Yes pcunix, and look how many posts it took to get there. We had to get past silly preconceived notions. Anyway,i enjoyed the exchange.
When it comes to the Universe Pcunix and you are not being so black and white
Forgive them for they know not what they do
Kind of goes both ways
I do understand that human minds can only be taken so far. I see the breakdown often when talking to theists - you can lead them along a logical path and they will accept every individual point along the way and then vehemently deny the obvious conclusion. That's sometimes weakness of mind: those people are simply not able to hold more than a few items in their head concurrently. It's why phone numbers are limited to seven digits - our average homo sapiens brain can't handle more.
But more often I think it goes to emotion. You may have read of brain imaging studies that show that in many situations, emotional decisions are reached and only then rationalized. I think that's exactly what happens with many theists: the emotional need decides that the god has to exist and everything that follows is simply their attempt at rationalizing a decision they reached emotionally.
Nothing to be done for either kind, of course. Not much point in trying, and yet we do, in the faint hope that reason and logic will prevail.
Oh but of course you're brain is superior to those that believe in God! Liberals are naturally smarter than everyone else, that's why they're the only ones that can understand their foolish policies! Yes only the liberals can lead us into the future, only the libs know what's best, what's right, and what's fact! LOL
Ahh. You dislike liberals. How precious.
Yes, in point of fact I am smarter than most, or at least much better at taking the tests that measure such things and much better at short term memory.
However, neither intellectual power nor a liberal political philosophy is necessary to understand why gods are impossible. I've given the reasons; I would think any reasonably bright child could understand them.
It was once thought heavier than air flight was impossible... we are on the verge of producing a "cloak of invisibility"... much of what we know today would be considered ridiculous in our past... anyone that uses the term impossible is simply short sighted, and without imagination.
Not really, heavier than air flight does not violate any physical laws. Something that does violate a physical law would be considered quite impossible. Can you defy gravity, for example?
Possibly. Not that anyone can yet
But the point is that if it CAN be done, it will come because of physics, not magic. That's what the dear liberal hater doesn't understand.
Physics is constantly being redefined. It would be wrong to assume that with all we know today that discoveries won't come in the future that will contradict and surprise us. You'd have to be a fool to believe everything known today is indisputable fact. Considering the size of the universe and the very, very tiny portion of it we are familiar with I am sure there will be surprises. We have already found life forms on our own planet that aren't carbon based! That was something thought impossible at one time too.
Not by everyone. In fact, several scientists speculated about non-carbon life many decades ago.
Perhaps, but gravity does not change.
Nice speech, but it still doesn't mean you will ever be able to flap your arms and fly regardless of whether or not we discover something new about gravity.
No, I don't think that was something thought impossible unless your referring to the clergy making claims of impossibilities.
Your failure to understand the reasons I gave is unimportant.
The objections to heavier than air flight had to do with power, more than anything else. We always knew it was possible: birds are heavier than air. People just didn't see how we could ever generate enough power. Later understanding of the lift produced by an airfoil indicated that it might indeed be possible and experimentation began.
As to invisibility, the "cloaks" you speak of already exist, though only for certain spectrums and are simply an applied technology not conceptually different from the mirrors used in trick boxes.
The impossibility of gods is a matter of logic.
so logically you should go read Junko's hub then comment in the Katrina thread - uh !
Well first you'd have to define what god is. Maybe in your mind what you understand to be a god isn't correct at all and perhaps that is why you can't envision the possibility.
The possibility in the mind of people will always remain, because they refuse to deal with the facts and truths, which are that the probability is NIL.
I already did that. You haven't bothered to read it even yet, have you?
For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, ... We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many ... We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, ...... and unified form the largest possible circle of formal relationships
Sometimes it is time for us to be more Conservative in our lives and sometimes more liberal. To fight this on a group scale is fighting each and everyone of us
I can't imagine how anyone can prove God is impossible to 8/10th to 9/10th of the people who think God is possible, Einstein could not
I wish I could bring Einstein into this thread to hear you say that.
To solve the mystery of the 99% unknown world, let alone the Universe
Then, why would Einstein anyways, he said he already believes in God
Doubtful that he did, actually. He definitely feared the religious establishment and fawned to it, just as Hawkings did until very recently.
But who knows? As I said, he may never have thought about this. If he had, he would have come to the same conclusion: no god is possible.
I can't imagine any human being that could prove that there is no God
Not your Champion Atheist Richard Dawkins. Hawkins stated to Dawkins why are you obcess with God. Even Dawkins said he not draw a a 100% conclusion there is no God
99% wishful thinking of the unknowns
1. Arguments is an angry discussion, I don’t get angry so I only do discussion, hrow that out
2. I belong to no group, so throw authority out.
3,You want to throw out the World champion of atheists- Dawkins OK.
4, just- curious thinks you may want to throw him out of his own thread.
or are you just both joking
5. I do what ever takes to be unlimited in life. You want to argue and claim I am too limited, just show me your resources?.
I’ll show my road record if you show me yours on the topic of unlimited Or
If you think I am too limited, I dare you to tour my hub pages?
Just think about it first
"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!
I continually remind almost everyone, I meet that we are all general equal , if you asking me?
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.
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!
Pc is only stating his views as you and I are, I'm not offering either of you a job.
However for the record, all the time I worked in a Corporate industry and in my own company I never once asked a persons religious affiliation. It is none of my business, as long as it didn't effect that persons ablity to do the job.
Although I have to admit in certain countries at certain times of year my patience and tolerence were severely tested.
And yes I still have Paganistic beliefs, take a look at my latest Hub. As I try to point out there Paganism is a way of life it is not a Religion and never was.
Not at all, there are quacks, cranks, nutjobs, loonies and crackpots that all have degrees. They just happen to be insane, too.
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
Logically - god is impossible. A god outside of logic cannot exist.
You have re-defined "god" to mean something that the theists do not accept. Your god is a concept - not an actual being in it's own right that existed before us.
God was created by us - it is a concept.
It does not and can not exist in reality.
You answered Castlepaloma's message as if you knew what the hell he was talking about...
Care to enlighten me ! I didn't understand any of it nor the point he was trying to make.
I’m sure the first man had a degree of logic then evolved to Stone Age man logic and so on
Our whole human race logic is only based on that 1% knowledge and information on the earth’s surface in which is that 1% a crust mass of 6 km, deep.
After that ,we need yet to explore the unknown 99% interior of the earth and its logic
After that the Universe and its logic
You see, we have extremely limited logic about God's possibliblies of some form of existence.
It's not humanly possible with everything we know to prove God dose not exist in any shape or form.
Nonsense. You are repeating religious gibberish now. Please stop.
It is perfectly possible to prove god does not exist. You are simply using the nonsensical "we don't know therefore it exists," argument.
You are rejecting logic. As I said before - if you choose to reject logic and reason - anything is possible - especially majik and invisible super beings. Which means there are an infinite number of possible gods. Define yours and - it becomes infinitely improbable.
Let me ask you - is it possible for something to be without a cause?
Mark - PC mentioned this before - do you have a link to the logic string that claims to prove this ? I must bave been banned when it went by last time
If God is possible it's only by logic. I challenge logical reasoning is not everybody's cup of tea. An idea or concept becomes fact with the help of science. Oneday the Big Bang theroy was a concept and became fact when science paved the way.
You said, "Logically - god is impossible. A god outside of logic cannot exist." If God is impossible by logic how God outside logic can't exist? How can you be alive and dead at the same time?
So - you reject logic?
Your English comprehension has let you down. The two statements mean the same.
Using logic - god is impossible. Nothing exists outside of logic.
The big bang theory is a "theory" - not a "concept."
Our human soul is made up of millions of parts, like arms, legs, name, country, Spanish language , logic etc etc.....See how extremely limited your tools are when only using logic.
Sometimes I’m just not for something mainly because I do not desire it or understanding it. Why reject anything completely, the Whole Universe is all connected,
I may never understand Religion or why Religious people want to separate join into fight clubs, Many Atheist separated from many people, ways of thinking too.
I choose not separate from the human race, just not interested in being owned by anyone or group and respect and accept what is
None of which has anything to do with the fact that logically - god cannot exist.
You are using an extremely weak argument - and in fact - you are the one limiting yourself. I do not feel limited in any way - because I am not trying to convince anyone that a concept exists in physical form. You also accuse me of doing things I am not doing.
I choose not to separate from the human race. I reject your illogical notions though.
All you are doing is what all religions do - you have made up your own version that separates you. You just use illogical, irrational arguments to suggest that the ones who do not accept your views are the ones who are separating themselves.
This is why a belief in a god - always causes a fight. Always.
Exactly. We ARE made of of parts - and if you had any understanding at all of what I previously said about gods, you'd understand that is part of the many reasons why such a thing is impossible.
A thing cannot be self created.
A thing that has existed forever cannot be composed of other things because that obviously means THOSE things existed before it. Such a creature is no god, it has to obey the physics that make its parts work. It could ONLY be a physical creature.
You can't say "My god is beyond logic and physics". The creature needs to think, to use energy. It needs to obtain, store and release energy and without the logic that drives whatever physics controls its parts, obviously it cannot.
If you are going to try to refute this, please be intelligent about it. I've heard all the nonsense before and am uninterested in the typical circular reasoning of theists - for example, saying "God CAN self create Himself" is circular and accomplishes nothing.
Nor does pushing things off to some other dimension/Universe/figment of your imagination. Wherever you place this creature, it has to obey SOME physics and therefore is bound by that. I will stipulate that such physics can be different than ours, so don't bother with that foolishness. It's still physics because physics - the laws of how things work - is necessary for thinking and action.
If you have sufficient intelligence to follow this, you will eventually see that the only possibilities for an (unlikely) creator of THIS Universe are a physical creature, whether OF this universe or not. It has to either be a product of evolution or some accidental and extremely lucky assemblage of individual parts - IT IS NO GOD.
I fully understand that most of you are incapable of following this. Some simply lack the intelligence, some will be too lazy. Most probably have neither defect, but will reject it because they are emotionally incapable of allowing the obvious conclusion.
It is interesting to observe how that latter group handles the issue. Some figuratively cover their ears and close their eyes, refusing to hear the argument that would destroy their faith. Others twist themselves in knots trying to rationalize a counter argument - somewhat literally, when circular reasoning is used, as it usually is.
There will be arguments from authority - we've already seen that. There will be anger - that's been here also.
But there is no possible refutation. You can conjure up a creator if you must, but it will be no god. It will be as natural as you are. You can imbue it with great knowledge and wisdom, give it great strength and abilities, but none of them will be supernatural because it cannot be a supernatural creature. It is a normal, physical being.
This thing itself might even say that it is your god. It will be lying or insane and your reaction to it should keep that firmly in mind.
Argument from authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (because obviously some are unaware of what that means)
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.
"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!
You mean "disagreeing", don't you?
How is disagreeing spreading hatred? In fact, I have no hatred of religion and have said numerous times and in numerous places that I believe it can e a positive force in some people's lives. That's "hatred" ??
I am also on record as strongly supporting freedom of religion - your right to believe and practice any religion (as log as you don't harm people, of course - death cults can't be allowed).
As to intelligence and my argument against any possibility of gods, that's silly.
As I mentioned earlier, you can feel free to assume that my intelligence is normal or even sub-standard if that makes you happy. It has nothing to do with my argument, which stands on its own merits. Are you able to refute it? No, of course you are not: that is why you are so bitterly angry.
I'm leaving for poker now. Have a lovely evening.
Just dropped by to point out that Osama Bin Laden has shown himself to be far more intelligent than most, just because he is one of the US most hated people does not alter that objective point.
He managed to engineer a shocking 'biblical prophesy' that has defeated the morale of huge sections of the US public and assisted the looney religious fundamentalists in promoting their ridiculous ideas.
On that note - Being stupid is to assume others of hate when they oppose your views, it is also avery christian response. I notice you then try to apply your nasty side swipe to Mark Knowles who also does not buy your ridiculous ideas any more than I do.
You then go on to try and slur PC - again very christian behaviour.
Just because you live in a state of shame is no reason to try to push this onto others.
Calm down china man... please don't get so angry! Why are you so angry with me... because I don't buy your idea (which appears ridiculous to me)? That follows a personal attack... again a very known and average behavior. Christian behavior... what's that? From where have you learnt about that kind of classifications? I believe your behavior is chinese behavior... ha ha ha!
My post was perfectly calm - what are you gibbering about in yours?
Christian behaviour earns a classification because it has significant common aspects that can be categorised, these common aspects can also be traced back through the history of christianity.
Why would you 'believe' that my behaviour is Chinese when I am an English guy ? But as you don't realise what you are doing I will explain it for you, you don't take the time to gather easily available evidence, you make assumptions and you operate on the basis of your preconceptions. As I said earlier, typical christian behaviour and the reason you know very little about your own 'beliefs' and are incapable of reaoning in any kind of lucid way.
Apart from that you seem like a nice enough guy.
HubPages nets me about $20 a month. If you can live on that, I'm ready to believe in your god!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow guys! Just research quotes by Einstein as I did. Thank you.
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.
By the way, the full article is here:
That is nothing more than ignorance gone awry. The explanation is much simpler than that link makes it appear.
The link is Einstein's actual words. It's not an explanation.
I have no idea what you are getting at.
Obviously the context of words is important in any dissection of their greater meaning. I thought it might be useful to supply that context. What difference does it make that some fool used "sacred" in the URL?
Again - how does that detract from the value of having the actual context in which he used the words you want (I forget who) to interpret?
Do I need to find the text at some other link to make you happy?
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?
Yes, we did, that's why we know you fabricated those stories.
Either I have totally lost my mind or you guys should continue your research.
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.
Then, as per your own words, you have lost your mind, or you just fabricated those stories, take your pick.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
As for your question- many advancements have been made.
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."
Do you even understand the quote I left?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just asked a question. What makes you think it isa religious one?
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.
No one came to this conclusion. No one says it was chance.
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.
Read "the Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking. And this is a good website written for laymen about string theory:
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
As a matter of fact, considerably. So gravity alone is responsible for what we observe today, in the cosmos? I guess I stil don't understand why Einstein made that statement. He knew about gravity. What do you think his line of reasoning was when he made that statement? Do you think he was serious, or just playing the media.
What? I thought you wanted to learn something about what we have learned since some one said Einstein said that.
"what scientific discoveries have been made, since Einstein was alive, that have moved us past this reasonable belief."
I suggested a book for you to read and offered a web site that explained string theory.
I have no idea why Einstein said anything - or even if he did. I imagine he must have been sick to death of religionists pestering him about not believing in their Invisible Super Being - don't you think?
Read the book I suggested, but - yes - gravity is the reason the universe formed itself, according to "science." No need for a god to be involved. Strictly a human invention.
Sorry I asked you to expand on what is obviously a sore subject for you. Have a nice day.
What? I thought you wanted to know what scientific discoveries have been made since Einstein said that.
But - you do not want to know that do you? Yes - I find these questions that you are not asking to get an answer to a sore point. A lot of religionists do it - not because they want to learn something. You completely ignored the answer I gave you.
Science has shown there is no need for a god. None. That seems to be the real sore point.
This is not about a god to me. It apparently is to you. Please, continue to exhibit a one track mind.
Ok Mark, I agree in that if someone who says they're religious asks a simple question, there are some that will look for a religious meaning behind it. Such behavior would, of course, instill some animosity: but does not necessary imply that the question should not be asked. Nor would it mean the blame for a war resulting from the simple question should be laid at the feet of the one seeking answers. If the question is so fretful, I wonder why you responded. But I guess that's a topic of discussion for another forum.
The definition of atheist is NOT "anti-theist".
Perhaps this is part of your problem - you do not know what words mean.
"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.
Goes to show you lack the ability to understand the statement. Not surprising.
Cagsil, "you meant to say or you should have said........." But on the other hand, you brilliantly stated the untruth.
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
Interesting how you took his words and twisted them to suit your agenda of conflict.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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.
PC - give up why don't you - go over and comment on the Katrina thread instead of wasting your ireaoning ability here.
Naw, it's too much fun playing with him. He (or she) will blow a fuse soon, I think
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
You are bored?
Then run off and play somewhere else. We don't need you.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!".
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
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.
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.
Hey! you are all my little buddies,or maybe not some so much.
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.
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
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.
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.
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.
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.
K. Who'se Lorraine? Is that a reference to someone I should know, or is that my name now. Hope so, it kind of has a ring to it I can be Lor, for short to friends, Lorraine to you. Not sure I'd call you friend yet, and then maybe just Rain when I'm feeling spiritual and mysterious. So many, options, it's dizzying.
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
I welcome you to stay, there is a great deal you can learn if you do.
I kicked you off??
Really? How did I accomplish this miracle? And why would I? Your theist bleating doesn't bother me.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Predictable response? I simply addressed a thought provoked by your post. Insinuate what you will. Perhaps I should have anticipated your judging and ASSuming nature.
Another question...If thinking about the afterlife and thinking on the past were considered a waste of time, how long before "the powers that be" decide what all else is a waste of time?
Your first question and the response predicted, wasn't an assumption as you claim. However, the response you gave was pretty close to what I predicted.
However, living in the present, planning for the future is never and can never be wrong. No powers that be would or could change it.
Just in case, to give you some assistance- I've written a hub based on The Past, The Present and The Future- Which Controls Your View? is the title. Good luck either way.
LMAO "planning for the future is never wrong" but in the same breath you condemn those who plan for the future spiritually. Playing God again aren't you?
Your arrogance is amazing Cags. Really.
As there is no "spiritual future", it is folly to plan for one. Imagine one if your weakness requires that, but you are being very foolish to plan for it.
Future and Spirituality are not to be put in the same sentence, and expect to be rational. It's irrational. Something you fail to understand.
The only spirituality of life is love. Got it? I hope so.
No rationally dismissing your fallacy of life after death.
My arrogance? You would see it that way. It's a shame. You're always negative. So much for practicing your faith.
Future and spirituality can and are used in the same sentences all the flipping time. You do not get to make those rules up!
God complex internalized - make a hub about that would ya?
We all get to make personal choices - even about spiritual matters - even if no one else agrees. I have never told you to believe what I believe, but you are constantly and persistently trying to pass off your beliefs on to me. So much for practicing what you preach. Oh pardon, what you predict and make rules about. Get real.
You can create a sentence that says black is white too, or that monkeys can fly.
That doesn't make it true.
Always amusing when a theist tells us to "get real"
I'm not making up those rules. It's common sense that the only spirituality in life is love. If you're unable to face it, then so be it. Don't need to get testy.
Why bother? It's not like you would read it, even if I wrote it.
I just recently published a hub to completely discredit Christianity. Yet, I don't see you on that hub either? Then again, very few religious choose to read it, because it denounces the philosophy you adhere to so strictly.
And, again, it shows you don't understand your own life. It's a shame.
Again, you are not different than other religious folks on here. You failed to see, I am NOT giving out beliefs. My beliefs are NONE of your concern and I wouldn't share them with you to begin with.
I practice what I preach. You failed to understand the words used or chose to see them as either negative and against you, or just completely dismiss them.
WOW! You're incredible. No rational argument at all.
You sytematically dismiss every point of my post, and have the audacity to claim I am wrong for (assumably) dismissing your points? How can you live in such denial? You demonstrate all that you accuse me of doing!!
As far as you keeping your beliefs to yourself....you told me there is no god and that beliving in one is irrational..that equals your belief. Still in denial? Going to claim you didn't say it? Get real still is appropriate for you.
Your words speak for you, or did you not realize that. I didn't dismiss your words or points. I made rationality out of them, so you would be enabled to see the irrationality of your own words.
Denial? You're kidding right.
I didn't accuse you of anything and your lack of understanding is appalling more than anything else.
It's not a belief. Which apparently you don't understand.
Like to repeat yourself I see.
I can see, you are up to your usual form. Telling people to get real is something you fail to do, so I am now curious- how is that you can tell what is real and what is not? Apparently from your speaking here. You cannot.
h.aborcich, He has dismissed every point of your post , and he has dismissed God also.
Why don't you stick your nose elsewhere. You responded to my post talking to someone else. Get with the program would you.
SHe is participating in a public forum - she is with the program. Making up rules again for the rest of us Cags?
h.a.borcich, Thank you, and yes I am with the program. I have stated the truth above.
Do you think you are clever with that childish capitalization?
If I were Cags, I'd report you. He's nicer than I am.
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.
So who decides what is and is not possible? Seems very narrow minded of you to declare the limits of possibility.
Thing that are possible are to remain possible, until knowledge is achieve to deem them improbable. Once something has been deemed improbable, then those things are not possible. Thus, impossible.
Again, you either did not read what I wrote or you failed to understand it or you simply refuse to understand it because of your emotional needs.
Your failings are not mine, and remember: I'm not writing for you. I'm writing to help other atheists, not to convert silly theists.
A hundred years ago the world could not fathom jet planes, cell phones or organ transplants. Were those who thought about the "impossible" then being silly? Just because you cannot call spiritual choices possible does not deem me mentally deficient. Rather it shows you are narrow minded. Write for whatever reason you choose, and keep your failings to yourself
We have been over this ground already. Why don't you try reading the whole thread so we don't have to repeat ourselves?
Wow! What an incredibly weak argument.
Go back even further and your religion would have anyone who even mentioned such things burned at the stake. Your religion wanted to kill those who claimed the earth was round.
As well, you compare real things on earth with a mythical god as far as being possible. Hilarious.
I think Pcunix should be considered fortunate to have a narrow mind when compared with that response.
You bear out my point...As knowledge is found and debunks the myth, the truth is known to all. All those who couldn't fathom jet planes and cell phones have had their laugh. It is your perogative to be one of those who refuses to believe what is not yet proved as well.
Your feeble attempt to label me as responsible for what happened centuries ago is hilarious. "My religion" brought food to the food pantry last week.
So what? Comparing real world issues with your mythical god isn't even an argument.
Just like it's your prerogative to believe in childish fairy tales.
I did no such thing, I merely pointed out you have no argument whatsoever when you compare world issues with mythical gods.
I'm so glad to hear your religion brought you food, taken from the mouths of the tens of thousands who will perish today in which your religion and their religion brought only misery and death.
I think your post was very intuitive. and if certain people were in charge of what to consider possible we'd live in an extremely boring world.
The real world isnt enough? You require magic and fantasy? How telling.
This is why they will not accept your logical argument. I agree - logically - god can not (and does not) exist. The uncaused cause god they claim simply cannot be.
But - these people reject logic as being worthy of consideration - hence the denial and constant attack on anything they perceive as a challenge to their illogical, irrational and untenable belief system.
So - if you reject logic and reason - a god is possible. In fact - an infinite number of gods are possible.
Which makes the one they think exists infinitely improbable.
So, by rejecting logic and reason, they have raised the chances of their god existing from "impossible," to "infinitely improbable."
The fact that they base their hopes for an afterlife on an "infinitely improbable," god makes them very aggressive to anything that suggests they may have picked the wrong one.
No wonder their belief system causes so many wars.
I agree, but unfortunately many so called atheists and agnostics buy right into the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" nonsense and, just like the theists, get very angry and defensive when told that they are wrong. In another thread, I have Evan Rogers calling me a "nitwit" because he thinks that gods are impossible to disprove.
The ease with which people will discard logic and move to magic is really astonishing. It's babble, whether coming from theist or a supposed atheist.
You say "if you reject logic". But no thing can exist without logic. What would bind it together, how could it think, how could it be ANYTHING? It could not, and it is utterly ludicrous to think that way.
Any god is impossible. There is no such thing as "beyond logic".
Well I would disagree with your claim of the infallibility of logic - if you mean the philosphical term logic rather than reasoning.
My claim says nothing about infallibility. I don't know where you get that.
However, logic IS infallible if you really have all the facts and are able to interpret them correctly. As we almost never have either the facts or the brain power to chain it all together, of course it never holds true in the real world.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with saying that "god is beyond logic" is pure babble.
I know that, but you are speaking to people who reject this notion in order to live in a fantasy world where there is an after life and the homos/jews/child molesters/fill in your pet hate here finally get what is coming to them.
Yes, that explains the theist.
How do you explain the atheist who insists all things are possible and that a god can be "beyond logic"?
What foolishness drives THAT, I'd like to know?
Reality is subjective and if a reality does not recognise logic then it is possible to be beyond logic - although of course in your reality logic still works.
Reality is not subjective. Your perception of reality is, but reality is what it is.
if that were not so, we could not be having this conversation.
The act that we can have a conversation is exactly the point. We can do so only because we are bound by the physics of our universe. That's the ultimate logic - the electrons flow, the transistors shunt them here and there through logic gates, and our screens light up for us to read the words. Without the logic of physics none of that could happen.
I don't just mean that we could not have invented all this, I mean that it could not exist. Think of pouring a glass of water. The enclosing glass is the logic that makes it possible - without the logic, you have nothing but a wet floor!
There is no such thing as "beyond logic". That's just babble, a final escape for the theist who wants to pretend that you can our a glass of water without the glass.
So you tell me: why do some atheists think the same thing?
Some people do not grasp your basic premis - that is all. This is a more full explanation.
http://hubpages.com/hub/UNCAUSED-FIRST- … on-REFUTED
I doubt that's going to help them any. Again, I think it is defect of mind: the easy slide into magic, the suspension of rational thought. They won't follow that lengthy exposition any more than they follow my radically condensed version (though both say the same thing).
"Please Captain, not in front of the Klingons." -- Spock, to Kirk, refusing a
hug (Star Trek V). "Do you think He's really out there!?" -- McCoy, re God ...
Even the most famous symbol of logic, Spock wonders if there is a God out there (written by an atheist)
I'm sure you and (Christian phobic )Richard Dawkins would really get bored without talking to believers of God.
Everyone has a degree of funny logic and so do you too, don't kid yourself, I hear you dish it out- all the time.
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
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.
By the way, Cags, welcome back. I'm happy you dd not stay away.
LOL. I didn't realize anyone thought it was possible to know it all until I joined Hub Pages. A path to no questions. It sounds boring at the top of that heap. Too many fighting to be king of the hill. I like the peanut gallery. We are so much more open to others of different mindsets.
You should be more careful about how you phrase something. I don't claim to be a know-it-all, but it is possible for someone to know all of the available knowable knowledge humanity has already discovered.
A path to no questions? Sure, people have questions, but whether or not, they are willing to accept the answer they get is a different story altogether.
No fighting to get to the king of the hill position. Just a bunch of ignorance running rampant about.
Peanuts are great tasting.
Open minded? Is that what you are calling yourself? Okay, if you say so, but if your words or actions says otherwise, are you open minded enough to notice? Not likely, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
just_curious, LOL, I agree with you. You stated it correctly. It's not hard to notice when a person just have to be right all the time. No one knows everything, but God.
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.
Hey, anyone reading this thread. I vote we NOT let pcunix be the judge of what people can think about. He's too judgmental already.
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?
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?
Why? Because the weak need religion more during a depression?
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.
Actually, Einstein said that he never believed in religion's god. That would make him atheist or agnostic. However, his own words would also say that he was not agnostic. So, atheist is the only thing left, unless he had no religion, which is also a possibility.
Einstein said he leaned toward Spinoza's (sue me if I spelled it wrong) idea of God. One with no interest in the daily lives of men.
Yeah, and a lady I regard highly here on Hubpages, believes god is energy. Because, energy is in everything. I have no qualm with her. I just rather she used a different method in which she uses the word "god".
Christian love Einstein, where are all the Christian at?
He did say that he did not believe in a personal god, however.
I suspect he was an atheist, but was afraid to say so. People kill atheists, you know.
Einstein's "belief" in Spinoza's God is one of his most widely quoted statements. But quoted out of context, like so many of these statements, it is misleading at best.
Einstein, good very well be among the 11% spiritual non religious types in the world
Of course, who would not want Einstein in their camp?
I think your statistic is not even accurate, because any statistic with regards to a belief in the spiritual is filled with ambiguity.
And, if it matters- No one ever asked me if I am a spiritual person. And, on Hubpages- I would think that many wouldn't bother to ask, because their defined spirituality is based on a god of some sort.
Yet, I see spirituality in life, strictly related to love.
There is your calling Cagsil
The church of Love
I would join that
I would be hurt with that , if I did not love everybody.
I don't believe a lot in the media too, just-curious
I did see her speak on TV for a half hour and Life magazine referred to her as the most hated woman in America.
I don't think like an Atheist or know much about her death , yet hate to me is like crime.
Kill atheists? When's the last time an atheist was put to death. Heck,i think some would argue the atheists have started a modern form, albeit not deadly form, of the Inquisition. ' Think outside of the box, do you? Off with their heads!' People kill atheists. I don't often see your funny side often. Good at attempt.
Famously in 1995: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_murray_ohair
You truly are uneducated, aren't you?
What a load of crock. you imply she was killed because she was an atheist. She wasn't. You know the internet is great since you can support any view with an article you can find to support your statement, but you need to find the right article, man. I'll make a bet with you. I bet more people of religious faith have been murdered over the last ten years, than atheists have been for not believing over the last hundred. Let's do a forum on that and see what the outcome is.
Perhaps. You only asked about atheists being murdered. She did receive many death threats.
Try these then: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/01/19/m … theist.htm
http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2010/10/athe … -iowa.html
Hardly the point. Many atheists are afraid of speaking their true beliefs. Not necessarily for fear of murder, but for ostracism, being held back from advancement, etc.
That is reality and it was even more so in Eibsteins time.
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.
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?
I was just giving atheists the best parts. I was going to be a monkey. It's always an argument with you. Any of the nice ladies can be Dorothy. The question is, which of them can sing?
In the defense of Pcunix being the scarecrow, scarecrow had most of the idea's during their journey, I'm a scarecrow too.
Well, then I think perhaps you should be the scarecrow. I'm not sure he's ready for the part. We'll find another part for him. Something he can enjoy. What do you say pcunix. Tin man or the lion? You better choose quick, don't want to have to be a munchkin.
What do you think you need most of?
A Brain, Courage or Heart.....please?
He may think this is too silly, I think it's educational
Castle, I'm actually crying here. Your last post was so funny.
Why should you or I, feel inferior to anyone.
Intellect is only 1/5 part to the whole of intelligent, you may do some things better than me and I may do something better than you. If someone hands me a true insult, I learning more about myself, I really like the fun one, best
What the Definition of Conceited
It’s an ant floating down a river on a leaf with hard on, Yelling
RAISE THE BRIDGE!!! RAISE THE BRIDGE!!!
You are a truly unappreciated genius, by some. Don't mind pcunix. He just doesn't get a lot of the jokes. Perhaps, he is just frustrated by an inability to formulate an intelligent insult. It is a mystery I will continue to attempt to unravel on my journey through Hub Pages.
Unlike you, I am not trying to insult.
Again, your words tell us a lot about you. Obviously you are frustrated by your inability to refute the logic that proves your fantasies are impossible. What do you do? You resort to insults - we've seen that throughout this thread, almost from the very beginning.
Hey pcunix. Loved your last post. I realize you want to sound superior and, I'm sure, you believe yourself to be. But, you should take your own advice. One should ignore a theory that has no basis for support. I see no logical reason to be insulted by your comments. Or chastised, if you are going to continue to pretend the high ground.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
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.
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.
You continue to slay me. I love to read your fiction.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Pointing out your faulty logic is berating you?
Sorry, JC - you aren't interesting enough. Worse, you are obnoxious. You are on my "ignore" list now.
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.
No, silly one: you won't drive us out. We'll just know to ignore YOU specifically.
A genuine Christian then - Close minded and antagonistic. LOL
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
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.
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.
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.
The Catholics have only just stopped shooting Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps the Muslim "threat" will be what unites them finally?
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.
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
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.
Black swans are not logically impossible.
All gods ARE logically impossible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I was not even speaking to you, I was responding to Beelzedad, who has only ever been a gentleman to me.
If you seek to take every word I say as an insult, then you can do so. It is beyond my power to stop you doing so.
I was trying to have a conversation with someone else which might have had a slight possibility of being productive. I don't think there is any possibility of a productive conversation with you, because this is an item of belief with you, nothing more.
In terms of refuting you, it is hard to do so with someone who has decided to take one single definition of God, and then proclaim that because their definition of God could not, in that persons limited knowledge, possibly exist God does not exist AND that there is no logical possibility of god ever existing.
I don't know any organized faith or religion that has ever held your definition to be 'God'.
Please feel free to provide a definition that is not subject to my argument.
Be as creative as you like. No god can exist.
Throughout most of recorded history, the only really consistent thing is that God or gods have been an entity which is more powerful than us, and can hurt us if we don't do what it says.
To be honest, at the present time, Obama is more powerful than most gods ever conceived in history..
Even the judeoChristian god, whose believers claim a lot more than other Gods, only claims to know everything that is happening in this universe, and to have created this universe, and to be able to do what it likes here.
Even more consistent is the fact that over time, we recognize these stories of gods to be myths.
Yes, but few if any of their claims aligns with reality.
As you note, your "god" is nothing but someone stronger and more powerful.
That hardly deserves a special word, does it? If extremely advanced aliens arrive, smarter, larger, moe powerful physically and technologically, shall we call them "gods"???
Nor is your assertion accurate: very few theists accept anything less than "omni" powers.
Do you agree that "omni" powers are impossible? Do you agree than any such creature MUST be a natural construction of some physics (even if not our own)?
So... can't respond to people individually any more because we seem to have gone a nest too far:
Most things humans have ever believed in, including most science, has been wrong. Or at least, not entirely right.
We have special words for a lot of things that are simply more powerful or stronger than us... government... king... president... sun king etc.
And i would enjoy looking at your survey data showing what most 'theists' believe.
As for natural... no idea what that means either. If God exists, he exists. Physics simply describe what we know about the universe. If we discover God exists, then physics will include him/her/it much as it would include the nessy if we discover it.
You didn't answer the implied question.
I'll rephrase it slightly. You assert that something massively more powerful than we are is a "god".
I imagined a group of highly advanced aliens arriving from some distant place. To make it simple, let's make it one such creature.
His technology is so far beyond our understanding that we would think it "magic". However, he doesn't pretend to be a "god". He simply aims to "straighten us out" so that we play by his rules.
Should we call him a "god"? Not "god-like", but does he deserve that word?
As to the opinions of theists, would you expect any of them to think this creature is "god" (with or without the usual capitalization)?
I'm sorry, PCUnix, it is getting increasingly hard for me to respond because the forum is hitting it's limits.
To all intents and purposes, if an alien were to come to earth, with the powers you describe, he (or they) would effectively be gods, yes.
Certainly as powerful as most of the Egyptian, roman or greek gods.
That's your answer?
I say that my orginal argument stands unrefuted then. In spite of your claims that it reminded you of idiots arguing, you have failed to refute it at all and have been left with this weak "effectively a god".
Do you now admit that I am right? No "god" is logically possible.
Still following the thread here.
PC, I note that Tom put a big"IF" out there...If an alien came to earth with powers that defy what our science defines...Why would you still hold to the old science? Wouldn't it be new information to be considered? I would think to dismiss the new evidence would be similar to what you say christians today are doing.
I am genuinely curious.
You aren't making any sense to me, sorry.
Of course we'd hope to learn the better science. What does that have to do with the argument that gods are logically impossible?
I wonder if you are trying to make the argument someone tried at a hub I wrote on this same subject. They asked "How much of physics (rules and laws that govern matter, energy and time etc) is known to the humans today. Just an approximate percentage of the whole lot of rules with say.. plus or minus 50%." - implying that we don't know enough to say that gods are impossible.
That's simply not understanding the argument. it doesn't matter how much physics we do or do not understand. All you need to understand is that SOME physical rules are necessary for sentience. The physics can even be somewhat unpredictable - uncertainty principle, for example - but it has to exist. No being can exist without it.
We've been over this ground. Do you have something new to add or was that your argument?
It wasn't an argument, it was merely a question.
You aren't making sense or being logical.
The question was if there was conrete proof of something that defies all the science you are aware of - would you take in the new evidence or stand that it cannot be possible? Did it matter that the new concrete proof of an alien with powers not thought possible?
It was a question is all. In light of such concrete evidence I would have much to ponder.
BTW, I may not fully grasp the manner in which science argues, nor do I fully understand the terms,etc; however, I am fully capable of thinking. All your innuendos at my stupidity only show you to be pompous.
I am NOT calling you stupid. I simply do not understand what you are driving at.
I answered your question: of course we would want to learn from an advanced technology. That doesn't change anything about the impossibility of gods.
So, the fact that science has provided "concrete proof" in a variety of avenues that contradict or refute religious beliefs, there does not appear to be any pondering or thinking on your part in that regard. You still embrace those beliefs.
I do not consider the abscence of evidence to be proof. Something in concrete before my eyes is something worth a pondering. Distinct difference for me.
Do remember I am not telling anyone what to believe. That I ask questions is just that - asking questions. Apparently that is a problem for a few hubbers, too.
But, like other believers here, you will dismiss hard evidence in favor of your religious beliefs. Why even bother asking questions?
Again - and I can't imagine how many more times I need to rub your nose in this - my argument against gods has NOTHING to do with absence of proof.
But you DO love straw men, don't you?
Yes, it is ironic that a theist should appeal to science in their desperation to have a god.
Yes, we can fantasize endless amounts of "If's" with aliens and all sorts of things, but that is a pointless as a broken pencil.
No, physics does NOT simply describe. Physics is our study of the rules that govern our universe. We have imperfect understanding, of course, but the rules exist. The rules can even be somewhat "leaky" - uncertainty principle is the common example - but the rules have to be somewhat reliable.
Do you agree that nothing can use energy in any reliable way without underlying physics? If your computer's logic gates were not predictable, would your computer work? If the neurons in your brain could not depend upon chemical reactions and electrical flow, what would you be?
If most science has been wrong, why are we not then living in caves? Science has brought you almost everything you have today.
What has religion brought you?
Because, Beelzedad, the difference between science and Religion, is that science tries to find out where it is wrong! Even if every scientific theory we have today is wrong, it is less wrong than our scientific theories were 100 years ago.
Science isn't finished.
As for religions, most of them have given us a great deal... fine art, culture, people more willing to give to each other, and moralities. They help a lot of people get up in the morning.
As for you, PCUnix, I tried to give you the last word, but no, I am still of precisely the same opinion. Your argument still reminds me of the idiots who used to argue about how many angels danced on a pin. After a lot of time discussing this, we are still precisely where we were at the beginning.
This is why I downloaded that forum filter, and tried to prevent getting into these religious debates, a week ago. They are pretty pointless. I have never known anyone to change their mind on any side of these arguments. Have you?
No, I have not. I do this partly for amusement and partly to support isolated atheists. I don't expect to change any minds.
But you are incorrect. We are not where we were. You have, in fact, effectively admitted that you couldn't refute my argument. The best you came up with was that a sufficiently advanced creature is "effectively" a god.
I think that's quite a bit different than arguing about angels, but if your pride needs you to pretend otherwise, fine.
PCUnix... if a being like you describe can break all the known laws of physics, do things that are so beyond our knowledge that it appears to be magic, and generally act like a God... of course it is effectively a god.
How does this prove anything?
You have set up a complete strawman argument.
You REALLY need to believe that, don't you?
"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."
Do you still cling to that?
You are now dismissing me again without ever having refuted anything. You have been driven to a tacit admission that there are no gods - only "effective" gods, but you refuse to admit your error.
You might as well be a theist
Yes. Your proof based on the entropy theory, was complete nonsense.
I have never in this thread admitted Gods do or do not exist. Only in your mind, PCUnix.
Right from the start of this I have said... I don't know whether gods exist, or not, but I have no evidence of any gods or Gods existing.
YOU are the one claiming you know that Gods do not exist. I don't know.
My proof was emphatically NOT based on entropy.
I have already told you that -m at length. But still you pretend otherwise?
That is quite explicitly what I understood you to be saying at the time.
Frankly, though, although you decided to change your opinion, your proof rolls down to this: if a being can break all the known laws of physics in this universe, do whatever it likes in this universe, and in general act the way all the Theists say...
It is still not God because it probably has limitations of its own.
Well, if a being can do all those things, does it matter what limits it has in its own universe? If it can break the laws of physics in OUR universe, and do whatever it likes to US, it has all the powers of God, and can act like the Theists believe God acts.
It would be God, regardless of the limits imposed on its own physical reality.
At least you finally understand the argument.
Yes, it does matter. It is not a 'god". It is a fraud or insane. That MATTERS.
PCUnix... it is you who doesn't understand my argument. My argument is, if such a being existed, they would not be lying or fraudulent when they said they were God.
They would be God.
So you say.
But you are wrong, and have been wrong throughout this entire discourse.
I'm quite surprised, because you started out bragging about your training in logic, yet all you have done is argue with straw men and when that failed, resort to bald assertion.
But there it is. There can be no gods and saying that there can be is as pointless as any bleating theist saying the same.
"So you say.
But you are wrong, and have been wrong throughout this entire discourse.
I'm quite surprised, because you started out bragging about your training in logic, yet all you have done is argue with straw men and when that failed, resort to bald assertion.
But there it is. There can be no gods and saying that there can be is as pointless as any bleating theist saying the same".
All that applies to one person in this discourse... you.
You have built up a strawman argument, which is complete nonsence, and all you have is an assertion that is nonsense.
Such nonsense, and yet you - with your university training in logic - were unable to refute it and STILL can only resort to calling it nonsense.
Calling something nonsense is not a valid method of refuting an argument, is it? Did they teach you that it is at your university?
The best you could manage is that something that has powers beyond ours is "effectively" a god.
How compelling. You know, a dog is effectively a cat, too.
There are no gods. No god is logically possible - as I have shown and as you have repeatedly failed to refute.
(by the way - learn how to quote properly)
I gave a definition of God, and said that if that a being exists that meets that definition it would be God.
You said I am wrong.
Fine, but all you have is bald assertion. No rational argument here. Just insults, strawmen arguments, and nonsence.
As for this conversation, I don't think it is possible to have a rational conversation with you. I don't think you are rational. So I am out.
How useful it is to call your opponent "irrational". That REALLY nails the argument, doesn't it?
You define a god as anything that looks like a god. That's circular reasoning, Thomas. Did you get that from your university training in logic?
I have put up no straw men (I don't even think you know what that term means, honestly). I have presented a logical argument which you failed to refute.
Here, let me repeat the parts you could not refute. I'll condense them here, but they exist in longer form earlier in this thread.
All complex things are composed of simpler parts.
A god is a complex thing
Therefore a god is composed of simpler parts
A god is composed of simpler parts
The parts must have existed before the god
The god is not the prime mover
Things composed of simpler parts depend upon the physical function of those parts to exist
A god must depend upon the function of simpler parts to exist
Therefore a god is dependent upon the physics of the parts
Therefore a god is a natural product of the physics of the universe it lives in
A natural product is not a god. It is no different than you and I, no matter what powers or technology it may possess. It has entropy needs (you misinterpreted that before, by the way and went off on a silly rant) because you need to attain, store and release energy to think, to move, to act. It is, in every sense, NATURAL.
"Effectively a god" doesn't cut it, Thomas. Not for me and certainly not for the billions of theists who quake in wonder at the omnipotent, omniscient being they imagine.
There can be no gods. Any god is a logical contradiction. This is NOT, as you tried to assert earlier, a matter of disproving a negative. It is saying that truth cannot be false, that one is not zero, that "is" is not "not".
Why do I harp on about this? Because I am tired of hearing this "Oh, but you can't PROVE my god doesn't exist!". Yes, I can. And I have.
By the way, the only person attempting any insults has been you. Remember? "Idiots arguing about angels"? That's YOU who said that, Thomas, not me.
How useful were any of your insults in your last ten posts?
We can't even agree a definition of what God is, how are we going to have a debate?
"A god is composed of simpler parts"
"The parts must have existed before the god"
What evidence have you that God is a complex being, or composed of any parts at all? What evidence have you that a god is constrained by the law of causality?
You cannot point to a single place where I ever insulted you.
Seriously? You are going to try again to refute this? Brave soul..
A monolithic mass - a unity - cannot store and use energy. If it is monolithic, there isn't even any such thing as energy - there is only the unity.
It can't move - there is no place for it to move to.
It can't act - there is nothing for it to act upon.
It can only be an inert, useless lump.
You tell me how a unity can think or act?
You are, of course, heading for another circular trip: a god is illogical, therefore gods can logically exist - that is your obvious destination.
Hi Tom, I think you have very well stated your point. You have demonstrated more patience than I could with a very insulting individual.
PC, you have been incredibly insulting. When you disagree with a post, you are quick to paint the hubber themselves as stupid and yourself as some brainiac. Attack their education, grammer, whatever you grasp in an effort to dismiss them as people with opinions. If that is what atheism has done for you - I think you should keep it to yourself. That said, watching you get all worked up, conjure up insults upon insults, only to see you go in circles has been humorous!
What a thread
I am a brainiac. Get over it.
However, I don't think of Tom as stupid, nor have I ever said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way. I have poked fun at his posting of his university training in logic, but that's hardly insulting.
I have NEVER attacked his grammar, only his logic.
You, of course, are determined that gods can be real. I've shown that they cannot. Throwing out false distractions about imaginary insults doesn't change that.
I'm not surprised that people lie to disparage arguments they cannot otherwise refute. It's all too ordinary, unfortunately.
This is your words from a post of yours on this very page :
"(by the way - learn how to quote properly)"
Deny it still?
You a brainiac? I see a hubber full of himself, and blind to his obvious behavior. There have been quite a few hubbers on this thread with various points of view about atheism. You have been demeaning to Cags, me, Tom, curious, etc, etc, etc, Looks like you are to much a brain to bother with anyone
False distractions? Really? Look again. CLosely. Reread your posts slowly if needed.
That's an insult? He wasn't using the HP quoting mechanism. He was just mixing my words with his in a way that made it very hard to follow.
I'm sorry that you are so angry with someone who threatens your core beliefs. Perhaps you'd be happier if you didn't engage with those who can threaten those beliefs?
I've said this many, many times: NOTHING in this argument requires advanced intelligence or education.
Go for the denial
Don't kid yourself - not even you have threatened my core beliefs in the slightest. That you imagine yourself to be so powerful is not a suprise
It is a shame that a simple exchange of ideas with civility is so far beneath your gigantic brain. If you could manage to consider all to have valid opinions even you could learn something.
By the way - in my last post I pointed out the comment you denied making about GRAMMAR. Duh
That wasn't a comment about grammar. That was a request that he use the quoting mechanism HP provides in this forum.
I'm sorry that you cannot see that I am being civil - in spite of Tom starting out by comparing me to "idiots arguing about angels"
I have also been civil with you and will continue to do so, in spite of your obvious anger and your misstatements of my actions.
" Did they teach you that it is at your university?"
"(by the way - learn how to quote properly)"
All these comments were meant to belittle, demean and insult me, and were taken as such. If you want me to quote more, I will of course, but practically every post you have made to me on this forum has had one veiled insult or another in it.
"A monolithic mass - a unity - cannot store and use energy. If it is monolithic, there isn't even any such thing as energy - there is only the unity."
Why? Again, you haven't explained why this is the case in a universe we haven't seen. In this universe, that is the case. Why do you believe it is the case in all possible universes?
No, I don't accept that those are insults. Poking fun at you, yes. And quite deservedly
It does no good to posit some other Universe. We have been over and over this ground, but you keep circling back for yet another try.
SOME physics is necessary. It can be leaky and perhaps a bit unreliable, but a logic gate that doesn't work properly at least most of the time won't suffice.
No sentient thing can exist without being composed of simpler parts that obey some physical laws. That ought to be axiomatic, really. It's rather obvious - well, unless you just dispense with logic, which leads back to the destination I know you are aiming for: A god is illogical, therefore you can't disprove gods with logic. That's circular and I hope you can at least see that.
That doesn't really fly with me as a logical proof.
Imagine if I were to produce a logical proof for the nonexistence of turnips
1. turnips are root vegetables
2. turnips do not exist
3. Therefore turnips do not exist.
Basically, one of the properties of God is that it can break the laws of nature (or at least some of them).
Your basic argument is to assume that there are properties of nature that you can't break.
Well... you might as well get rid of all the other points, because they are irrelevant to your argument.
As a logical proof, it comes down to, I assume God does not exist, therefore God does not exist.
No, you still misunderstand the argument.
It's not that there are properties of nature that you can't break. It's that properties - physics, rules, whatever words you want to use - are necessary for this sentient thing. It is DEPENDENT upon those rules. It's not that it can't use rules to its advantage as we do, it's that it needs the rules.
Have we established this much so far? The thing cannot be a unity, cannot even be a simple duality; it requires AT LEAST NAND gates to process information.
The logic and the materials of the gates have to have existed before it did. It is nothing but a product of physics. It can be nothing more.
Can you truly not see that yet?
Perhaps I need to put this another way to help you understand.
A unity cannot store information. A "1" or a "0" by itself is useless - you need at least a duality of both 0 and 1.
The more zero's and one's you have, the more information you can store, but simply storing is not sufficient, is it?
You can't make decisions with just zeros and ones, can you? At the very least, you need a logic gate. You don't need much - a simple NAND gate is enough for any decision needed, but you need at least that.
A "god" plainly must store information and make decisions, a god obviously cannot be a unity and cannot even be a simple repetition of dualities.
You can follow this, I'm sure.
I am beginning to think you don't know what a straw man argument is, Thomas. Perhaps you should go back to that university for a refresher course?
I thought both science and religion were avenues for getting answers and understanding. The pros and cons of these can be discussed further.
I don't thing religion has provided any of those things. In fact, there are believers here who have stated quite emphatically that religion does not offer or provide morals.
As far as helping people, it is only a crutch for underlying problems or issues, which are still there and haven't been dealt with, only masked, but still present.
lol ignorance is depressing in this case.
my dear, religion brought you science.
The limits are upon the atheist and science and thats why Einstein says that science is lame, good logic, I say.
The 3% Atheists of the world are never going lead revolution or rule the world with without being much more creative. Atheist are never going get far without having different ways of thinking available other than just logic, although logic is part of the whole.
There are very few atheists on the list of great men in history so like the leopard, they may get more spots and they may get less spots.
Pc claim I am limited thinking person Yet, Pc is unwilling and can't prove his knowledge, with physical results is greater than mine so who a stick in the mud or a fence sitter, I know from my road record I never was or never be a stick in the mud or a fence sitter
I got nothing to prove that God dose not exist, Atheist do. Seem impossible to me and to Einstein since he stated he is deeply religious and believe in a form of God anyways, just not into the super natural kind of God, like me.
So I can’t imagine atheist will ever prove God dose not exist. Not without known the knowledge of the 99% unknown world, let alone the Universe, seem logical don't you think atheists?.
You canot imagine it? You don't have to imagine it: I have proved it.
Small hint: your mention of Einstein is called "Appeal to Authority" or "Argument from Authority". It is one of several fallacies of defective induction. You can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of … _induction and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I would suggest you should do so (for reasons that may not be obvious to you).
You see, that's the specific reason I asked YOU if you understood the statement Einstein made.
Science without Religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.
Do you understand it? From your statement above, you don't. So, please do try and explain.
I understand your point, Cags, but what difference can it make?
Because Einstein, Dawkins, Hawkings, Mother Tersa and Barack Obama believe something is not a refutation of my simple argument that no god can exist.
I think that Einstein, like Hawkings, had genuine fear of religion. Hawkings seems to have moved beyond that for now, but I really expect him to slide right back to fawning in some manner soon enough.
If my livelihood depended upon the approval of society, I might do a bit of public fawning myself.
Oh, mighty Cagsil, forgive me for commenting in a public forum.
I sometimes forget how (self) important you are.
You really do know how to make friends and influence people, don't you?
That's not the point PC. Your sarcasm isn't necessary. I wanted to know if Castle understood the statement Einstein said and if he did, then please explain what he thought of it.
That's why I responded to HIS post and didn't mention your name.
I understand. I don't see how my response interferes with his, though.
No doubt that's my inferior intellect. I too would like to see his response, though honestly I don't expect one.
Your response demeans me for no reason. Yet, you failed to see that.
You don't SEE how this post is demeaning? Really...
As for my coming across arrogant? That's your perception, infallible as your argument is with me presently.
Oh, OK, Cagsil.
As usual, I really, really should have known better.
Let's stop bickering. It has caused the little ones to go silent and we REALLY need to hear what they have to say.
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.
At the moment Newton was wrong, he was wrong in the most scientific way possible. His theory fitted all the observed facts.
Then someone else came along with a new experiment that added new facts.
What we know on any subject can always be proved wrong with new data. This includes the existence (or nonexistance) of God.
The question I have for you, Beelzedad, is if you had an experiment that could prove the existence of God, would you run it?
An atheist need not do so, because they have come to the settled conclusion God does not exist.
Ah, but it didn't. Newton's "particle" theory could not explain refraction.
I would agree. So, what exactly do we have as far as evidence to suggest a particular god exists? And, which one of the many gods claimed to exist do we look for such evidence?
In a heartbeat. And, of course, if we are conducting such experiments, it is to "falsify" the hypothesis, according to the scientific method.
Perhaps, that is because with all the information we have about our world and our universe coupled with the fact that the more we learn, the more we find the concept of gods to be entirely unnecessary for any explanations.
I thought they explained away refraction with the Ether?
As far as evidence of god existing... none.
I did try to run an experiment, I once went out in a thunderstorm and called him rude names. No lightening hit.
By the way, in this case, "falsifying the hypothesis" means trying to prove god exists... cos you can't prove something doesn't exist, it is logically impossible.
I can and I have.
You keep asserting this nonsense, but you have not even begun to address my argument.
Perhaps, but the ether turned out to be bunkum.
Other than the bible, talmud, quran, and a host of other scriptures, of course.
I would suspect that considering many believers claim to have experiences or claim to talk with their gods, this would be the avenue of experimentation to pursue.
Agreed. And, I would wish anyone all the best of luck in doing so. Give my regards to Broadway.
Then feel free to explain where my argument fails. Good luck with that.
Not sure if that was for me, but I only stated that those who wish to conduct experiments in an attempt to prove their gods exist are free to do so, and I wish them all the luck.
Your argument stands.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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?
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 ?
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.
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.
I am NOT imposing our physics, I don't understand how you keep missing that. I am imposing SOME physics. That is a logical necessity for sentience - it is not a logical necessity for simple existence, because we can envision a monolithic "chunk" that simply exists - it has no rules. It can't DO anything, though: it is inert and useless.
I agree with you completely. But, I would rather say that other existences could have different time (physics). Slightly different connotation.
Actually, the problem is that "the outside of the universe" is a meaningless concept and I suspect Hawkins would not argue such.
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.
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.
Fine. You don't understand. Leave it be and be happy. I have no problem with theists who are kind to other people.
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.
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.
Oh! Lets add potentialities without bodies as a possible existence. Stand back pcunix because I am going to shout "SPIRIT!".
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.
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.
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?
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.
A theist never introspects. If they had a rational thought run through their minds, it would scare the living daylights out of them.
OK. Now that was way harsh. You don't fool me with that emoticon.
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.
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.
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.
It never ceases to amaze and amuse me that people see disagreement as belittlement.
If you really think that having your beliefs challenged belittles you, you should stay away from places where beliefs are challenged.
I cannot point to a real instance of belittlement here. In fact, had there actually been one, it should have been reported to the admins as a personal attack, should it not?
There has been some gentle rib poking. I've seen no real insults (not even that "idiots arguing about angels" really qualifies because you can interpret it as direct to the argument, not the person) and have definitely seen no belittlement by ANYONE.
In fact, this has been one of the more gentle and civil discussions to be found here.
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.
So you're having fun. I'm sincerely glad to hear that. There were moments of doubt there for me.
aren't we all having fun here? I think forums are for people who want to avoid working.
One would hope. I'm new here. Haven't seen many of your posts, but like them all so far.
Funny you can't see that your own popular belief system will someday go blowing in the wind, too.
Yes, but haven't your read, mine shall rise again.
Is Christianity popular now?
It used to be, but is now on the decline. Haven't you noticed it's already being blown into the wind?
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.
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.
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
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? 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.
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.
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?
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.
No need to disprove or prove a metaphor. Only to make sense of it.
No, you can't disprove a metaphor. You CAN prove that no god can possibly exist.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
You have no logic or rational in that statement. But, good day.
Caqsil, afraid that all things in life is not layed out logically nor rational. Experience is the Father of knowledge. Good luck.
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.
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.
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.
Pcunix, glad to agree with you finally. This forum was enlightening to me. Thanks for your point of views.
Pcunix, Yes, this thread is quite interesting. Thomas didn't fail. His responses makes plenty of sense.
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?
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.
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!
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.
Is this your attempt at explaining- science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's far more than 3%. But what matter is that? At one time all your theist minds thought the sun orbited the earth. That a majority believes something doesn't make it true. In fact, it is often all the more suspect for just that reason!
I don't just think it - I have offered a simple proof that no one has been able to refute. A proof is not an opinion.
It isn't hard to understand. If you have some issue with it, you should just say what it is. Does it bother you to examine it? Would your world crumble if you finally understood how wrong you have been?
Just got back home from work.
Pcunix wrote ...
At one time all your theist minds thought the sun orbited the earth.
= - = - = - = - = - = -
Now that is the way some of YOU Atheists are. ...
Totaly out ov level comments such as this one. EVERY one may have thought that the earth was flat. Theism-Atheism has nothing to do with that misnomer.
Pcunix wrote ...
I have offered a simple proof that no one has been able to refute. A proof is not an opinion.
= - = - = - = - =
And what is this suposed simple proof.
And concerning a "Proof ?" What is Proof but a statement of fact that is, (in our opinion) hard or imposible to refute.
Believe me, anything that "anyone" expresses as a statement of fact can and will be refuted.
For, don't you see; nothing is ever as it apears to be.
I guess you can't be bothered to look back in this thread to find it.
Here, I'll make it easy for you.
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.
So, Jerami, can you refute any of that?
I will give this some more thought !!
BUT ; the first thing that comes to my mind is that this sounded something like this....
Because we know that the electric supply was cut off; and she said that she cooked a meat loaf in the oven, I know that we didn't have a cow; SO, It you think about it; this proves that there were no birds in the tree.
Nice try, Jerami, but I can't give you a prize for that. I've shown you what you need to refute; have at it.
Pcunix wrote ..
If you cannot do those things, your next task would be to show how a logic mechanism is not dependent upon rules.
= = = = =
Ok I'll play for a moment!
Would you say that the rules themselves is a logical mechanism ?
I would think so!
I then ask you; "What rules are these rules that you speak of dependent upon?"
The rules are the physics of the Universe, Jerami. They are what makes things work.
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.
As you have jumped to this so quickly, dare I assume you admit defeat on the other points? Is this your only desperate gambit?
rule one in "atheism for dummies says".....
You cannot refute that which is not....
so now you claim to have no knowledge of God...how can you present an argument against it...
since the premise for your argument is an impossible... there is absolutely no point in refuting the arguments themselves for it is... obviously... all based on a false knowledge...
on a whole lot of assumptions.
They don't even know the beliefs surrounding that which they are refuting...or the entire science behind it. The entire history of intellectual thought regarding the origins of consciousness and all of the universe, he thinks he cracked using the binary system.
Very silly to think they have all the knowledge to crack something infinitely larger than they could ever train for in one lifetime.
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is no easy task. According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the Atheist in the world
I think there more than 2.3 atheist in the world, I gave you 3%. By having no big stake in Atheists or Religion, being in the middle is less likely to crumbles then the two extreme of the poles on the topic of God
Again, the percentage doesn't matter.
There are no gods, even if I were the only person in the world to say so.
In many of topic or cases I too, have stood alone, and would say the strongest man in the world is the man who can stand alone.
In every case I stood alone, I did change eventually changed most people around me toward my views in time.
In this case of God, I can’t imagine it will not change that much in your or my life time.
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.
There was a time in North America 98% were Christian and all it was called all spiritual.
There was a survey done in American in 400 Universities, it turned 65% were somewhat religious and 87 % were somewhat spiritual . It's changing slowly intellectually with a new philosophy view of God
Personally I’ll take more kindness in the world than more philosophy or more religion
I will partially agree with you.
Rational arguments will not dissuade emotional belief because the believer refuses to listen to reason.
That may sound belittling to you, but actually there's nothing wrong with that. Where the problems of religion come is when the believer rationalizes actions as justified by that deep emotional need to believe. The base belief is harmless and can bring happiness to the believer. It is when the believer rationalizes that his fantasy desires him to act that it can cause misery for others.
Of course there is another side: the believer can be convinced that his god desires him to be kind, charitable and so on. If we had more of that, the world would be a better place.
None of this is to imply that religion is in any way necessary for either misery or kindness. It merely adds a dimension of fantasy to actions that would happen anyway.
By the way, there is no "new age philosophy" in anything I have said before or now.
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".
And, you've chosen to lie about Einstein. Much worse.
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.
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.
I only explained in simple terms PC. Nothing more.
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.
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...
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.
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.
There was no morality before Jesus?
Cags, you are so incredibly wrong I can't even imagine what is wrong with you.
It's some what true in our western culture as In the history of mankind's in the first dynasty of Babylon. This was the first system of law, the first educational system, the first love song, The first tax cut stone words and inscribed details of land grants that were grants of tax exemption on land all mixed with military and more.
Sorry Pc I guess your new greater intelligent design is just not enough for our experiences and spirit.
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.
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
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.
Oh! So we don't need government? Glory be!! I am for that, pcunix.
Is government a book?
Where I live, government is me and my neighbors. We vote, we argue, we set down rules and WE CHANGE THEM as needed. We don't have imaginary congressmen or presidents, we look to real people to do the best they can managing a complicated mess. We don't have an inviolate set of rules, we don't worship the government.
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?"
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.
That's why I said, The problem with the Bible is wrong translations
At least Pcunix, I meet you half way on all this.
Virgin birth, worked miricles, crucified, came back to life, worked around for a few days, ascended in the heavens.
During the same period, persons reported UFO's. NO one believed them, but they now have been caught on 100's of videos. Peoples still don't believe their eyes. "My lying eyes."
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
We don't need gods for morals. I agree that we must temper science with sense, but religion isn't the path for that.
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.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm god morals - I guess you missed the history lesson about the inquisition, and the witch burning - Oh yes and the reason there are almost no more religious run childrens homes which almost without exception were places of the most horrendous abuse by the followers of your god's morals ?
the inquisition is not a product of religion, it is a product of politics.
Since when is Canon Law political? Since when did heretics, offenders of the Roman Catholic Church become political?
always, its all political because the motivation is not to elevate consciousness, its to control.
okay you're really funny and showing your ignorance. Canon Law is politics, the law attempted to create order in dissent. there were so many "interpretations" so to centralize power to the vatican Canon Law was invented. politics. It has nothing to do with Jesus or myth or anything in religion that is being used as a machinery for their political agendas.
I'm so glad your entertained.
See if you can find the word 'politics' in this description:
i can't find it in wiki but it's here:
you continue to amaze me, refuting everything without thinking.
These are not the general rule, but exceptions. Nothing is perfect in this world. The fear is that atheist shall make it a general rule because when they decide something that is adverse or even unfair to you, you are looking at your localized gods...it goes no farther.
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?
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
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!
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.
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!
We are living.
We don't need fantasy. You do. That's fine, but it really is fantasy.
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.
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.
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.
No bear was ever seen. Just a book full of fantasies about bears that never lived.
PC, fantasies are subjective reality. They are not useless. They are just misunderstood.
True, fantasies have value. But they ARE fantasies.
But they are symbolic of actual things that are generated by our biological systems. Fantasies are dreams and dreams are coded language of the consciousness. They are folded information incorporating visual, auditory, chemical and behavioral links into one symbol, and they play out as visions that luminaries talk about, that resounds and are understood by the consciousness. They are very real. They just need to be decoded. You can't say they are "just" fantasies. You can't dismiss something that is fundamental to our evolution. Dreams are the way we store memory, and fantasies is within the same realm as dreams.
Some people say that God does not exist because we can't prove it with our five senses.
In using that criteria, Thought does not exist.
If thought doesn't exist; reason doesn't either.
SO! how can we use something that does not exist in an attempt to prove anything does?
"Some" people say anything.
My argument against any possibility of a creature such as you fawn to is quite different. Do you dare to argue with that?
I really cannot believe this rubbish is still being posted upon, what you think is irrelevant, what I think is also irrelevant, we are just passing through and the ONLY relevant issue is whether, when we depart this mortal coil, there is any relevant opinion to be passed on our lives.
I'm off again now, got a life to enjoy, but just dropped in to see if the forums were producing anything.... they are not.
proving has a lot of parameters...and given the amount of things you have to prove first, it's just pointless. I can't prove to you that I dreamt of an angel. You just have to take my word for it. I could go on a lie detector test but it only proves I don't think I'm lying.