Re: Definition of God

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
>
> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
> > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
> >>confined exclusively inside the brain
> >
> > Actually there is a very good reason.
> >
> > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
>
> You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
> consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
>
>
> > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
> >
>
> and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
> constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
>
> The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure
Being
> the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of
> consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the
> current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike the
> physical body.
>
> a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need
> for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to
> re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)

Are you open to answering a question, sir?

You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality"
and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.

Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so that
anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
 
"Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
> >
> > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> > news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
> > > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
> > >>confined exclusively inside the brain
> > >
> > > Actually there is a very good reason.
> > >
> > > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
> >
> > You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
> > consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
> >
> >
> > > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
> > >
> >
> > and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
> > constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
> >
> > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure
> Being
> > the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression
of
> > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the
> > current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike
the
> > physical body.
> >
> > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the
need
> > for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to
> > re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
>
> Are you open to answering a question, sir?
>
> You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality"
> and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.
>
> Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so that
> anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
>
Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for
science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically?
If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of
science?

Dan Wood


Dan Wood
>
>
>
 
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44f07229.66284968@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:27:12 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> There is only one thing you can be certain about and that is your
> >> knowledge that you exist. Everything else is based on assumptions
> >> (called axioms in formal logic systems).
>
> >You can know death and taxes!
>
> Not with absolute certainty.
>
> >Pain exist, but you cannot measure it, nevertheless pain exist. It could
> >be the same with conscienceness.
>
> That's an epistemological (psychological) statement and therefore has
> nothing to do with the real objective world.
>
I said as much. It is psychological, but quite real to the person
experiencing it.
>
Dan
> --
>
> I just neutered the cat - now he's French.
 
"Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
>>
>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
>> > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
>> >>confined exclusively inside the brain
>> >
>> > Actually there is a very good reason.
>> >
>> > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
>>
>> You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
>> consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
>>
>>
>> > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
>> >
>>
>> and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
>> constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
>>
>> The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure
> Being
>> the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression
>> of
>> consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the
>> current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike
>> the
>> physical body.
>>
>> a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need
>> for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to
>> re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
>
> Are you open to answering a question, sir?
>
> You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality"
> and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.
>
> Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so that
> anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
>

Sure. You can't check my observations, they are mine alone. Neither can
science, as it's outside the bounds of science. Science deals with physical
reality, form, matter, physics etc. , beyond that is consciousness or
awareness or spirit whatever label one wishes.

However there a few research studies of NDE etc
http://www.iands.org/ and http://www.oberf.org/ and other info around. some
are better than others in regards to quality.

This would be the best one that I am aware of ::
http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf
If you also want to read its accompanying Commentary, you may visit the
Lancet website, register there for free, and search for the keywords "near
death". The article's title is, Near-death experience in survivors of
cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands, to be cited as
Lancet 2001; 358: 2039-45. Its authors, in addition to Dr. van Lommel, are
Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, and Ingrid Elfferich.

Of course there are those who totally rely on science to inform them as to
what is real/possible and what is not, and that's ok too. Up to you
basically. Hope that helps.





>
>
>
 
"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156802476.331932.152400@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 25 Aug 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >> On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >> >>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this
>> >> >> simple
>> >> >> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> invents positions we don't have.
>> >> >
>> >> >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that
>> >> >God
>> >> >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right?
>> >> >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must
>> >> >be
>> >> >right.
>> >>
>> >> Don't be so ****ing stupid.
>> >
>> >i don't dillute myself in thinking I am an expert, I am just a little
>> >pissed off that I am being attacked for what I believe in. however I
>> >do understand now, that I realized I stumbled onto this board, what the
>> >big rub is, i am guessing the sci.logic board is not very welcoming of
>> >theists.
>>
>
>>
>> As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented
>> about us.
>
> i have to admit i never gave atheism much thought and I may not have
> approached it in a considerate matter from which I can learn from.
> however what I am curious about is what kind of code do atheists live
> by?

Code? Nothing really. Just do my best to be a nice person, considerate of
my fellow human beings, take care of the environment, be kind to animals,
etc.

> common sense?

See above.

as most religions help spell out right and wrong
> for the followers.

Fat lot of good it seems to to any of them.

> we as a people need a common sense of purpose in this country,

We do? Why? Because it's what you want?

we are
> divided amongst ourselves and tearing down common citizen rights for
> individual rights. a nation divided shall not stand. i believe this.

Oh well.

>> You need to learn that there is a real world outside your religion, in
>> which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in
>> it, simply don't apply.
>
> i know plenty about the real world outside my religion, i know many
> people with many different beliefs however none have approached me with
> so much hostility.

Um, approached you? Hardly, it would seem that YOU approached us. I'm
sorry you didn't care for your reception, but did it ever cross your mind
that we've heard this all before and aren't interested?

--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557
 
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>
I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
I could never deny him.

Dan
>
<snip>
 
jjj
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ><snip>
> > It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
> >
> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> I could never deny him.
>
> Dan
> >
> <snip>
>
>
 
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%xQIg.30697$j8.20254@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
> > >
> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> > > news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
> > > > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
> > > >>confined exclusively inside the brain
> > > >
> > > > Actually there is a very good reason.
> > > >
> > > > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
> > >
> > > You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
> > > consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
> > > constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
> > >
> > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure
> > Being
> > > the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the
expression
> of
> > > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in
the
> > > current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike
> the
> > > physical body.
> > >
> > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the
> need
> > > for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing
to
> > > re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
> >
> > Are you open to answering a question, sir?
> >
> > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical
reality"
> > and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.
> >
> > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so
that
> > anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
> >
> Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for
> science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically?
> If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of
> science?

What supernatural? Are you trying to get away with assuming your conclusion
(begging the question)? Demonstrate anything paranormal and win
US$1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/
 
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f3e245@news.eftel.com...

>
> "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
>>>
>>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>>> news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>>> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
>>> > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
>>> >>confined exclusively inside the brain
>>> >
>>> > Actually there is a very good reason.
>>> >
>>> > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
>>>
>>> You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
>>> consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
>>> >
>>>
>>> and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
>>> constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
>>>
>>> The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure
>> Being
>>> the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression
>>> of
>>> consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the
>>> current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike
>>> the
>>> physical body.
>>>
>>> a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the
need
>>> for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to
>>> re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
>>
>> Are you open to answering a question, sir?
>>
>> You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality"
>> and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.
>>
>> Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so
that
>> anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
>>
>
> Sure. You can't check my observations, they are mine alone.



Then you give us no way to verify that you do in fact know what you are
talking about. Come on now. We are all human and all pretty much alike. Why
don't you just describe your observations in detail so that anyone can check
them, so that anyone can see that you are telling the truth? Do you actually
have anything real you could truthfully say is an observation?



> Neither can science, as it's outside the bounds of science.

It is? Now you are just taking it for granted that it IS someplace (that it
exists). That's a no no. You have to establish that somehow, you can't just
take it for granted (begging the question).

Why would anyone think that anything any human claims to have discovered
would be outside the bounds of the scientific investigation of the other
humans?? The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding any
statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement at all,
including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the power behind
physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on. So far
all you have given us is a vague reference to something you call 'pure
being' that is allegedly 'the power behind physical reality'. What is that
exactly? What are we skeptics to look for?



Tell me this: If it interacts in any way with physical reality ("the power
behind physical reality"), as you insist it does, then it is sure to leave
some kind of indication, residue, or 'mark' (so to speak) that you have
detected with your senses, in other words to leave physical evidence,
otherwise you would have had no way of discovering it, right? Can you
describe in detail your discovery, your observation of any evidence of any
such interaction so that anyone can check your observations?
 
"DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ncKHg.10299$L6.6254@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
> > >> >have none of this assurance.
> > >>
> > >> Neither do some theists.
> > >>
> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer
> > >> exists.
> > >>
> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is
> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible.
> > >>
> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
> > > exclusively in the brain?
> > > No one knows for certain.
> >
> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are
> > famous, as Copi explains:
> >
> Your logic aside,

Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking
(logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right?

> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact
> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind?

Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there is
no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan.

> > <quote>
> > Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in
> > criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
> > mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
> telescope.
> > Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a
> perfect
> > sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued
> against
> > Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys,
the
> > moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent
irregularities
> > are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this
hypothesis,
> > which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not
prove
> > false!
> > </quote>
> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
> >
> > [In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
> > imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SsKdnRE_v9DgmGjZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f3e245@news.eftel.com...
>
>>
>> "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>>>> news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>>>> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
>>>> > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
>>>> >>confined exclusively inside the brain
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually there is a very good reason.
>>>> >
>>>> > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
>>>>
>>>> You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
>>>> consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
>>>> constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
>>>>
>>>> The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure
>>> Being
>>>> the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression
>>>> of
>>>> consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in
>>>> the
>>>> current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike
>>>> the
>>>> physical body.
>>>>
>>>> a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the
> need
>>>> for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing
>>>> to
>>>> re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
>>>
>>> Are you open to answering a question, sir?
>>>
>>> You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical
>>> reality"
>>> and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.
>>>
>>> Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so
> that
>>> anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. You can't check my observations, they are mine alone.
>
>
>
> Then you give us no way to verify that you do in fact know what you are
> talking about. Come on now. We are all human and all pretty much alike.
> Why
> don't you just describe your observations in detail so that anyone can
> check
> them, so that anyone can see that you are telling the truth? Do you
> actually
> have anything real you could truthfully say is an observation?
>


Have a look at the question you asked, which I answered truthfully, and then
explain to me how you are going to scientifically check my personal
observations and expereinces and then establish that I am telling the truth
or not?

I know the limits of science, but it appears you have some mystical notion
about what it is capable of.

However, if you're just looking for an argument or expect me to provide
information just because you ask for it, well I'd suggest you are dreaming.
<smile>


>
>
>> Neither can science, as it's outside the bounds of science.
>
> It is? Now you are just taking it for granted that it IS someplace (that
> it
> exists). That's a no no. You have to establish that somehow, you can't
> just
> take it for granted (begging the question).
>

Maybe you;d like to restate that? I have no idea what you mean.


> Why would anyone think that anything any human claims to have discovered
> would be outside the bounds of the scientific investigation of the other
> humans??

Why do you ask?


> The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
> any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
> systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding any
> statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement at
> all,
> including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the power
> behind
> physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on.

Why do I have to?

> So far
> all you have given us is a vague reference to something you call 'pure
> being' that is allegedly 'the power behind physical reality'. What is that
> exactly? What are we skeptics to look for?
>

I don't care what you look for. Not my problem, that's yours. ;-)


>
>
> Tell me this: If it interacts in any way with physical reality ("the power
> behind physical reality"), as you insist it does, then it is sure to leave
> some kind of indication, residue, or 'mark' (so to speak) that you have
> detected with your senses, in other words to leave physical evidence,
> otherwise you would have had no way of discovering it, right?

Why? Why is it sure to leave some kind of indication, residue, or 'mark'
(so to speak) that I have detected with my senses, in other words to leave
physical evidence. This is very odd logic on your part.

Do you believe that that there is some physical evidence, some residue, some
mark, that I saw a bird in a tree with my eyes in 1966 on a particular date?

Why then would project that impossibilty into other areas you seem to deny
are possible?

Can you
> describe in detail your discovery, your observation of any evidence of any
> such interaction so that anyone can check your observations?
>

I already answered a very similar question. Did you miss it, or just won't
take no for an answer? <G>
 
Dan Wood wrote:

> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> I could never deny him.
>
> Dan
>
I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?
 
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Wood wrote:
>
>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>> something
>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> I could never deny him.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?
>

He'd sure as Hell copped an "F" on his report card. <smile>

Then again, he may have gotten an A for effort. One can't always blame the
teacher for poor performing students who refuse to do their homework.
hehehehe
 
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
> "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote

> > The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
> > any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
> > systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding any
> > statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement at
> > all,
> > including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the power
> > behind
> > physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on.
>
> Why do I have to?

Because you are the one making that extraordinary claim of yours concerning
the nature of things.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sKGdnY43UM5ah2jZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>>
>> "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> > The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
>> > any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
>> > systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding any
>> > statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement at
>> > all,
>> > including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the power
>> > behind
>> > physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on.
>>
>> Why do I have to?
>
> Because you are the one making that extraordinary claim of yours
> concerning
> the nature of things.
>
>

So what?

What is this illogical rule that says a) I have no right to make
extraordinary claims or that b) that I must give you or anyone something
real to go on or c) that I have to prove it to you to your satisfaction?

Why do you believe such crap? I'd really like to know, if you can explain it
to me.


>
>
>
>
 
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Wood wrote:
>
>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>> something
>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> I could never deny him.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?

Which is probably why they're always bleating about him coming back again to
finish the job.
We've had PART 1- "Access to the Everlasting Kingdom Through Jesus" and now
they're waiting for the sequel, -PART 2 - " Everlasting Kingdom -The
Rapture"
Neat how their little fantasies all fits in, isn't it?
At least, in their minds it does.
The mental contortions and apologetics that True Believers squeeze
themselves through have always fascinated me.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"



>
 
>> > > No one knows for certain.
>> >
>> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
>> > are
>> > famous, as Copi explains:
>> >
>> Your logic aside,
>
> Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking
> (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right?
>
>> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact
>> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind?
>
> Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there is
> no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan.
>

the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer. If something is a
fallacy, then it is not logical.

Furthermore, this whole issue is predicated upon arguments only being
logical. even when an argument or pov is based upon reasoned logic, does not
in itself PROVE the conclusion to be automatically true in reality. The
argument may be sound, but both the facts and the premises could be totally
false.

people can be great at winning logical arguments, but still not know much at
all about what is true or false in reality.
 
In article <sKGdnY43UM5ah2jZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
> >
> > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
> > > any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
> > > systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding any
> > > statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement at
> > > all,
> > > including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the power
> > > behind
> > > physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on.
> >
> > Why do I have to?
>
> Because you are the one making that extraordinary claim of yours concerning
> the nature of things.

Septic, who here mis-signs himself as "Your Logic Tutor", but doesn't
have enough logic to come in out of the rain, has in his time made
claims just as extraordinary and then refused to "give us something real
to go on".
 
Sean wrote:
>
> What is this illogical rule that says a) I have no right to make
> extraordinary claims or that b) that I must give you or anyone something
> real to go on or c) that I have to prove it to you to your satisfaction?

Without this rule, anyone can say anything about anything.
At that point, all speech becomes meaningless. We pursue
this rule because we wish for speech to be meaningful.


Marshall
 
"Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7NqdnW_btcren2jZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%xQIg.30697$j8.20254@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message
news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> > > > news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > > > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
> > > > > <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
> > > > >>confined exclusively inside the brain
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually there is a very good reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the
brain.
> > > >
> > > > You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
> > > > consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
> > > > constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the
physical.
> > > >
> > > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is
Pure
> > > Being
> > > > the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the
> expression
> > of
> > > > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in
> the
> > > > current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die,
unlike
> > the
> > > > physical body.
> > > >
> > > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the
> > need
> > > > for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're
willing
> to
> > > > re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
> > >
> > > Are you open to answering a question, sir?
> > >
> > > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical
> reality"
> > > and that it does not cease with the death of the individual.
> > >
> > > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so
> that
> > > anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically?
> > >
> > Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for
> > science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically?
> > If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of
> > science?
>
> What supernatural?
>
Can you predict what discoveries the future will bring? Until the
creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything about the
formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula. Does that
mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The existance
of microscopic organisms was not recognized for centuries before
the invention of the microscope. Does that mean they did not
exist before they were discovered? Obvioulsy that is a silly
question. The supernatural presently lies beyond our five sinses,
does that mean it doesn't exist? >
Are you trying to get away with assuming your conclusion
> (begging the question)? Demonstrate anything paranormal and win
>
I assumed nothing, rather I asked the question.

Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which
come true.

Dan Wood, DDS


> US$1,000,000.
> http://www.randi.org/
>
>
>
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
126
Backlink Hut
B
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
Back
Top