Guest Libertarius Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Daley2005@msn.com wrote: > I have been reading all your different posts. I must say it is very > interesting. This argument that there is no God to argue about. My > argument is very simple:there is a creator God. The evidence is in > your own life, just as it is in mine. Have you ever studied the human > heart? I have. It is fascinating, so intricate, so detailed, so not > made by chance. ===>You are denying ewvidence for millions of years of evolution of the heart. Why don't you take a course in comparativbe anatomy? At least read something. Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man by NANETTE H. BISHOPRIC Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33101, USA "an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of the eukaryotes." http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1047/1/13 We still do not understand fully how the brain works, ===>You should let yours start working. -- L. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "old man joe" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:f6rck2dv9kol26dbnlmg6356iqv0glk5kg@4ax.com... > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:11:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >I have often thought about what kind of evidence > >would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > >existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > >are materialist, could they possibility accept any > >evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > >constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot > >rely upon the five senses to detect God. And > >it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect > >God nor examine him under a microscope or > >view him through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers > >have isolated and cut themselves off from any > >and all possible avenues of discovery when it > >comes to possible evidence of God. > > > >Dan Wood > > > Mr. Wood... the evidence is obvious to these people " because God made > it evident to them " Ro. 1:19 but these people " suppress the truth " > Ro. 1:18 > > since God Himself made Himself evident to these people you nor anyone > will ever convince them there is a God. > > what's more is that " God gave them up " Ro. 1:24 ... which means > they were passed over for salvation just as in Joh. 10:26... they are > simply " not His sheep " and therefore can not " believe " > I think I've said essentually the same thing. Christians I think have it on the nonbelievers in that Christians can understand _both_ the material (natural) universe as well as the spiritual world. The unbelievers are confined to the narrow channel of the natural world. They _cannot_ conceive of anything else. Dan Wood, DDS > > > > > > > >"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message > >news:4545F4C8.927DD482@netvigator.com... > >> > >> > >> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, bob young wrote: > >> > > >> > > The_Sage wrote: > >> > > > >> > >>> Reply to article by: bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > >> > >>> Date written: 28 Oct 2006 00:05:02 -0500 > >> > >>> MsgID:<4542E486.BC42FCE@netvigator.com> > >> > > >> > <snip> > >> > > >> > >>>> Nor does it prove God exists. Calling nature a God will not turn > >> > >>>> nature into God anymore than calling a weed a rose will turn a > >> > >>>> weed into a rose. > >> > > >> > "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as > >sweet". > >> > > >> > -- Wm. Shakespeare > >> > > >> > >>>>> Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", > >> > >>>>> it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. > >> > > >> > >>>> Remember, that depends on what you mean by "God". Not everyone will > >> > >>>> agree with your arbitrary definition of "God", so your arbitrary > >> > >>>> definition means nothing in the pursuit of truth. > >> > > >> > >>> The defnition of the Christian God has changed dramatically over the > >> > >>> past three hundred years. > >> > >> > >> > >>> [no need to say more.] > >> > >> > >> > >> In other words, neither the word "Christian" or "God" have any > >> > >> meaning unless you pretend they have meaning. > >> > > >> > The words "Chistian" and "God" have millions of different meanings to > >> > millions of different people. > >> > > >> > > That's about the sum total of it. > >> > > > >> > > What my great grandfather thought and today's Christians think are > >> > > miles apart. > >> > > > >> > > So which is/was the correct ? > >> > > > >> > > Does the clergy still preach about Angels? Heavens no, > >> > > they gave that up fifty years ago as 'females with wings attached > >> > > to their shoulder blades' was becoming far too silly for even > >> > > Congregationalists to swallow ! > >> > > >> > The Roman Catholic Church still has lots of angels and archangels > >> > and many multiple hosts of heaven. > >> > > >> > Most of the angels all flew away from most of the protestant churches, > >> > but a few of the angels decided to remain in some of the best > >> > protestant churches where the congregations appreciate their help and > >> > pray for their assistance and protection. > >> > >> sorry to say so "But a sad case" > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Sam Heywood > >> > -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 > >> > > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Dan Wood wrote: > > I have often thought about what kind of evidence > > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > > are materialist, could they possibility accept any > > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > > constitute evidence. > > It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what > the evidence for its existence is. > I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. Dan Wood Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message news:1162245541.096918.169730@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Dan Wood wrote: > > > > > > > Just provide ANY evidence that leads inescapably to the conclusion of > > > your deity. > > > > > To what purpose? For what reason? > > To answer the titular question. > Since one cannot detect God with the five senses, the answer has to be otherwise. Dan Wood, DDS Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:46:55 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >news:1162245541.096918.169730@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> > > >> > > Just provide ANY evidence that leads inescapably to the conclusion of >> > > your deity. >> > > >> > To what purpose? For what reason? >> >> To answer the titular question. >> >Since one cannot detect God with the five senses, the answer >has to be otherwise. More dishonest question-begging. >Dan Wood, DDS > Quote
Guest L. Raymond Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > I think I've said essentually the same thing. Christians I think have > it on the nonbelievers in that Christians can understand _both_ the > material (natural) universe as well as the spiritual world. The > unbelievers are confined to the narrow channel of the natural > world. They _cannot_ conceive of anything else. Christians, victims of alien abductions and lunatics are all aware of worlds that the majority of people are not. Does that make all of them equally superior? -- L. Raymond Quote
Guest Ron Baker, Pluralitas! Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:lLw1h.49634$vi3.3116@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... >> Dan Wood wrote: >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... <snip> >> You are making a >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why >> should I believe you? >> > I've made negative claims relating to materialism. My claim is that > no evidence susceptible to our five senses can detect the deity. > Since I cannot know your mind, I can only ask, given these > circumstances, what would would be the nature of the > evidence acceptable to you? It's a fair question! > > Dan Wood, DDS What would be acceptable evidence of Quetzalcoatl to you? -- rb Quote
Guest Ron Baker, Pluralitas! Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kbx1h.49647$vi3.41926@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... <snip> >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why >> should I believe you? >> > What I see as evidence is indirect - indirect evidence > of a creator/designer. If I see a dam, across a river > I personally have no knowledge of who or what > conceived and built this dam, but I would initially > conclude that this dam was the result of events or > a series of events, unwitnessed and unnatural. > A structure which is disrupting the natural flow > of water. IOW the very existance of the dam itself, > is _indirect_ evidence of a creator/designer. > > Dan Wood, DDS So beavers are God? -- rb Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message news:12kdc1ejskm6kd7@news.supernews.com... > Dan Wood wrote: > > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... > >> Dan Wood wrote: > >>> "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message > >>> news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > >>>>> I have often thought about what kind of evidence > >>>>> would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > >>>>> existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > >>>>> are materialist, could they possibility accept any > >>>>> evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > >>>>> constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot > >>>>> rely upon the five senses to detect God. And > >>>>> it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect > >>>>> God nor examine him under a microscope or > >>>>> view him through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers > >>>>> have isolated and cut themselves off from any > >>>>> and all possible avenues of discovery when it > >>>>> comes to possible evidence of God. > >>>>> > >>>>> Dan Wood > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers > >>>> what it would take to convince them that some kind > >>>> of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the > >>>> 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). > >>>> > >>> I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, > >>> it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature > >>> or essence of God. Whoever or whatever > >>> created the Universe and life is God. We humans > >>> have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs > >>> about God. But as the creator the name is of > >>> no importance. > >>> > >>> Did > >>>> it ever strike you that, if we nonbelievers knew the > >>>> answer to that question, we would BE believers? AS > >>>> far as I am concerned, no acceptible evidence has > >>>> ever been presented. > >>>> > >>> I'm sure this is true. I do not know and I doubt you know > >>> what would be acceptable as evidence. > >>>> I doubt that any ever will be. > >>>> But...if any NEW evidence was presented, we atheists > >>>> would be the first to examine it. > >>>> > >>> If this evidence cannot be dissected, and viewed under > >>> a microscope or seen through a telescope there is no > >>> way you atheist can exanine it. IOW what would > >>> you recognise as evidence? > >>> > >> Let me try this tack. You seem to be claiming that you have some sort > >> of ESP. You have a god detector that allows you to have some knowledge > >> of the creator of the universe. You can't, however, demonstrate this > >> detector in any way. Well, let's leave god out of it. You are making a > >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why > >> should I believe you? > >> > > What I see as evidence is indirect - indirect evidence > > of a creator/designer. If I see a dam, across a river > > I personally have no knowledge of who or what > > conceived and built this dam, but I would initially > > conclude that this dam was the result of events or > > a series of events, unwitnessed and unnatural. > > A structure which is disrupting the natural flow > > of water. IOW the very existance of the dam itself, > > is _indirect_ evidence of a creator/designer. > > > > Yes, but you wouldn't call the creator god. > You missed the point. This was only an analogy. But it made the point that the existence of a dam is and of itself_indirect_ evidence of an architect. The usual responce to this is: there is no evidence of an architect. One must first prove the existance of an architect. But the existance of the dam is evidence arbeit indirect evidence. > > The creation of our > universe gets into quantum mechanics and we know enough about it to know > it isn't really understandable. > Quantium mechanics is a law of physics. It applies to the universe after Planck time - not before. We can extrapulate backwards to planck time using known and well understood laws of physics with a high degree of certainity, but no further. There must have been some unknown physics between the moment of the Big Bang and 10^-43 seconds afterwards, Martin Rees calls this the period of uncertain or unknown physics. (Rees, 2001, pg 84) > > It just gets back to the idea that something must exist in and of itself. > Could this not be God? I believe you just described the Christian concept of an Eternal God. > How does having that something > be a divine intelligence that humans can have some awareness of explain > anything? > It could explain not only how, but why the universe was created. > What created the creator? > Why do you assume that there must have been a creator prior to time, space and the laws of physics necessary to create the creator of the universe? Perhaps you answered your own question above. > It is a lot easier for me to > believe that whatever exists (or existed) in and of itself was not > intelligent and intelligence evolved in steps. Humans have a need to > feel they have some control over their destiny. I think invoking an > intelligent creator who is somehow aware and concerned with individual > humans is just an attempt to satisfy that need. > I don't dispute this. And I appreciate your view on this. > It doesn't work for me. > That's fair enough. I respect that. Regards, Dan Wood, DDS Quote
Guest Rusty Sites Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > news:12kdc1ejskm6kd7@news.supernews.com... >> Dan Wood wrote: >>> "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message >>> news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... >>>> Dan Wood wrote: >>>>> "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >>>>>>> I have often thought about what kind of evidence >>>>>>> would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >>>>>>> existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >>>>>>> are materialist, could they possibility accept any >>>>>>> evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >>>>>>> constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot >>>>>>> rely upon the five senses to detect God. And >>>>>>> it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect >>>>>>> God nor examine him under a microscope or >>>>>>> view him through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers >>>>>>> have isolated and cut themselves off from any >>>>>>> and all possible avenues of discovery when it >>>>>>> comes to possible evidence of God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan Wood >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers >>>>>> what it would take to convince them that some kind >>>>>> of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the >>>>>> 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). >>>>>> >>>>> I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, >>>>> it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature >>>>> or essence of God. Whoever or whatever >>>>> created the Universe and life is God. We humans >>>>> have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs >>>>> about God. But as the creator the name is of >>>>> no importance. >>>>> >>>>> Did >>>>>> it ever strike you that, if we nonbelievers knew the >>>>>> answer to that question, we would BE believers? AS >>>>>> far as I am concerned, no acceptible evidence has >>>>>> ever been presented. >>>>>> >>>>> I'm sure this is true. I do not know and I doubt you know >>>>> what would be acceptable as evidence. >>>>>> I doubt that any ever will be. >>>>>> But...if any NEW evidence was presented, we atheists >>>>>> would be the first to examine it. >>>>>> >>>>> If this evidence cannot be dissected, and viewed under >>>>> a microscope or seen through a telescope there is no >>>>> way you atheist can exanine it. IOW what would >>>>> you recognise as evidence? >>>>> >>>> Let me try this tack. You seem to be claiming that you have some sort >>>> of ESP. You have a god detector that allows you to have some knowledge >>>> of the creator of the universe. You can't, however, demonstrate this >>>> detector in any way. Well, let's leave god out of it. You are making > a >>>> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. > Why >>>> should I believe you? >>>> >>> What I see as evidence is indirect - indirect evidence >>> of a creator/designer. If I see a dam, across a river >>> I personally have no knowledge of who or what >>> conceived and built this dam, but I would initially >>> conclude that this dam was the result of events or >>> a series of events, unwitnessed and unnatural. >>> A structure which is disrupting the natural flow >>> of water. IOW the very existance of the dam itself, >>> is _indirect_ evidence of a creator/designer. >>> >> Yes, but you wouldn't call the creator god. >> > You missed the point. This was only an analogy. But it made > the point that the existence of a dam is and of itself_indirect_ > evidence of an architect. The usual responce to this is: > there is no evidence of an architect. One must first prove > the existance of an architect. But the existance of the dam > is evidence arbeit indirect evidence. >> The creation of our >> universe gets into quantum mechanics and we know enough about it to know >> it isn't really understandable. If you lived in the jungles of New Guinea and had never encountered modern civilization and saw a modern concrete dam, you might conclude that gods had built it. In fact, similar things have happened. The universe isn't really like a dam. If you saw a big bang (somehow), would you conclude that it had an architect? If you saw a supernova explosion, would you say that had to have an architect? I say that because it is actualy possible to see a supernova explode and it seems vaguely like a big bang. >> > Quantium mechanics is a law of physics. It applies to the universe > after Planck time - not before. We can extrapulate backwards to > planck time using known and well understood laws of physics > with a high degree of certainity, but no further. It's relativity that breaks down really, or the lack of a theory of quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics is definitely not intuitive. You have to give up on ideas like something is in only one place at one time or even that cause must precede effect. My point is that what happened at the beginning of our universe, if it really did begin with a big bang, does not follow any intuitive rules. There must have > been some unknown physics between the moment of the Big > Bang and 10^-43 seconds afterwards, Martin Rees calls this the > period of uncertain or unknown physics. > (Rees, 2001, pg 84) Unknown physics = god? >> It just gets back to the idea that something must exist in and of itself. >> > Could this not be God? I believe you just described the > Christian concept of an Eternal God. The Christian god is the God of Abraham who made man in his own image, sent his only begotten son to die on a cross so that all who believe in him might have everlasting life, hears our prayers, and is concerned with the activities of humans. None of that follows from existing in and of itself. > How does having that something >> be a divine intelligence that humans can have some awareness of explain >> anything? >> > It could explain not only how, but why the universe was created. Why is there a why? Why not just is. Existence exists. > What created the creator? > Why do you assume that there must have been a creator prior to > time, space and the laws of physics necessary to create the > creator of the universe? Perhaps you answered your own question > above. "Why do you assume that there must have been a creator prior to time, space and the laws of physics..." So far, this is your assumption and my question to you. I am asking if you say there had to be a creator of the universe, why would there not have to be a creator of the creator? Instead of a dumb universe just following the laws of physics, you postulate something with the ability to create a universe existing in and of itself. Why doesn't that require an explanation at least as much as the universe? > It is a lot easier for me to >> believe that whatever exists (or existed) in and of itself was not >> intelligent and intelligence evolved in steps. Humans have a need to >> feel they have some control over their destiny. I think invoking an >> intelligent creator who is somehow aware and concerned with individual >> humans is just an attempt to satisfy that need. >> > I don't dispute this. And I appreciate your view on this. > It doesn't work for me. > That's fair enough. I respect that. > Good! Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >theory. What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a complete idiot? Quote
Guest Godspeed Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message news:4546D489.5050704@nothingbutthe.truth... > > > Daley2005@msn.com wrote: >> I have been reading all your different posts. I must say it is very >> interesting. This argument that there is no God to argue about. My >> argument is very simple:there is a creator God. The evidence is in >> your own life, just as it is in mine. Have you ever studied the human >> heart? I have. It is fascinating, so intricate, so detailed, so not >> made by chance. > > ===>You are denying ewvidence for millions of years of evolution of the > heart. Why don't you take a course in comparativbe anatomy? > > At least read something. > > Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man > by NANETTE H. BISHOPRIC > Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, > Miami, Florida 33101, USA > > "an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the > beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. > Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning > energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of > the eukaryotes." Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven theory. Quote
Guest Dichard Rawkins Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Dan Wood <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message <1kB1h.43503$X11.38728@bignews7.bellsouth.net> > "old man joe" <not@home.com> wrote in message > news:f6rck2dv9kol26dbnlmg6356iqv0glk5kg@4ax.com... > > they were passed over for salvation just as in Joh. 10:26... they are > > simply " not His sheep " and therefore can not " believe " > > > I think I've said essentually the same thing. Christians I think have > it on the nonbelievers in that Christians can understand _both_ the > material (natural) universe as well as the spiritual world. The > unbelievers are confined to the narrow channel of the natural > world. They _cannot_ conceive of anything else. That is of course naive BS. Many of us unbelievers not only CAN conceive of things other than the natural world, many of us DID conceive of it, and in fact did believe in the supernatural, before we eventually came to the conclusion that it was hokum. The silly odea in the Bible that unbelievers can not believe is just idiotic bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. -- Free Your Mind Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2925 [ Followup-To: alt.bible ] Quote
Guest Dichard Rawkins Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Dan Wood <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message <YoB1h.43505$X11.8578@bignews7.bellsouth.net> > I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist > what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order > to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. The answer is easy. Something that is a self-contradiction unless interpreted as a supernatural phenomenon. -- Free Your Mind Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2925 [ Followup-To: alt.bible ] Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:54pdk2pshr4nblv8bd9tc40ker9bra3fvo@4ax.com... > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:46:55 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message > >news:1162245541.096918.169730@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > > Just provide ANY evidence that leads inescapably to the conclusion of > >> > > your deity. > >> > > > >> > To what purpose? For what reason? > >> > >> To answer the titular question. > >> > >Since one cannot detect God with the five senses, the answer > >has to be otherwise. > > More dishonest question-begging. > More insults from the queen of insults. > > >Dan Wood, DDS > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:1tws103phoidq$.ofeiqemo3ohi$.dlg@40tude.net... > Dan Wood wrote: > > > I think I've said essentually the same thing. Christians I think have > > it on the nonbelievers in that Christians can understand _both_ the > > material (natural) universe as well as the spiritual world. The > > unbelievers are confined to the narrow channel of the natural > > world. They _cannot_ conceive of anything else. > > Christians, victims of alien abductions and lunatics are all aware of > worlds that the majority of people are not. Does that make all of them > equally superior? > What does this mean? No one is superior to anyone else. > > -- > L. Raymond Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:16:07 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:54pdk2pshr4nblv8bd9tc40ker9bra3fvo@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:46:55 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >> >news:1162245541.096918.169730@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > Just provide ANY evidence that leads inescapably to the conclusion >of >> >> > > your deity. >> >> > > >> >> > To what purpose? For what reason? >> >> >> >> To answer the titular question. >> >> >> >Since one cannot detect God with the five senses, the answer >> >has to be otherwise. >> >> More dishonest question-begging. >> >More insults from the queen of insults. Where was the insult, liar? Stop dishonestly begging the question and it won't be pointed out. >> >Dan Wood, DDS >> > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message news:Q%B1h.13766$8C4.8950@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:lLw1h.49634$vi3.3116@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... > >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > <snip> > > >> You are making a > >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why > >> should I believe you? > >> > > I've made negative claims relating to materialism. My claim is that > > no evidence susceptible to our five senses can detect the deity. > > Since I cannot know your mind, I can only ask, given these > > circumstances, what would would be the nature of the > > evidence acceptable to you? It's a fair question! > > > > Dan Wood, DDS > > What would be acceptable evidence of Quetzalcoatl > to you? > Quetzalcoatl could have been an extinct bird. In South and Central America there were huge birds that became extinct eons ago when North and South America was bridged by the Isthmus of Panama. One species could have survived into recent history as a living fossil . Bones of such a creature of recent demise would convince me. So is that what it would take to convince you of the one time existence of God. This bears out my original premise that nonbelievers can accept only that which can be examined with the five senses or the extention of these senses. Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed "God is Dead" on a toilet wall. Ancient fables sometimes have a way of being rooted in fact. The aboriginals also believed in white men with beards who taught them would some day return. That was a long-standing fable confirmed by the arrival of the Spaniards. Regards, Dan Wood, DDS > > -- > rb > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message news:F4C1h.16693$gU6.6023@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:kbx1h.49647$vi3.41926@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... > > <snip> > > >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why > >> should I believe you? > >> > > What I see as evidence is indirect - indirect evidence > > of a creator/designer. If I see a dam, across a river > > I personally have no knowledge of who or what > > conceived and built this dam, but I would initially > > conclude that this dam was the result of events or > > a series of events, unwitnessed and unnatural. > > A structure which is disrupting the natural flow > > of water. IOW the very existance of the dam itself, > > is _indirect_ evidence of a creator/designer. > > > > Dan Wood, DDS > > So beavers are God? > Ha ha ha he he ha (: ) this was not the point I was trying to make. Dan > -- > rb > > Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> wrote: - Refer: <5rH1h.56460$rP1.36388@news-server.bigpond.net.au> > >"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message >news:4546D489.5050704@nothingbutthe.truth... >> >> >> Daley2005@msn.com wrote: >>> I have been reading all your different posts. I must say it is very >>> interesting. This argument that there is no God to argue about. My >>> argument is very simple:there is a creator God. The evidence is in >>> your own life, just as it is in mine. Have you ever studied the human >>> heart? I have. It is fascinating, so intricate, so detailed, so not >>> made by chance. >> >> ===>You are denying ewvidence for millions of years of evolution of the >> heart. Why don't you take a course in comparativbe anatomy? >> >> At least read something. >> >> Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man >> by NANETTE H. BISHOPRIC >> Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, >> Miami, Florida 33101, USA >> >> "an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the >> beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. >> Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning >> energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of >> the eukaryotes." > >Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >theory. Ignorance rules! Evolution is an observed FACT. -- Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Godspeed wrote: > "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message > news:4546D489.5050704@nothingbutthe.truth... > >> >>Daley2005@msn.com wrote: >> >>>I have been reading all your different posts. I must say it is very >>>interesting. This argument that there is no God to argue about. My >>>argument is very simple:there is a creator God. The evidence is in >>>your own life, just as it is in mine. Have you ever studied the human >>>heart? I have. It is fascinating, so intricate, so detailed, so not >>>made by chance. >> >>===>You are denying ewvidence for millions of years of evolution of the >>heart. Why don't you take a course in comparativbe anatomy? >> >>At least read something. >> >>Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man >>by NANETTE H. BISHOPRIC >>Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, >>Miami, Florida 33101, USA >> >>"an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the >>beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. >>Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning >>energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of >>the eukaryotes." > > > Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven > theory. ===>You speak from ignorance. Evolution is a FACT, otherwise you would not be here. But there are THEORIES (plural) proposed to EXPLAIN the facts of Evolution. And theories are NOT to pe "proven" or "unproven". There's a difference between theory, hypothesis, sepculation and confabulation. Biblical creationism is confabulation: filling in gaps in human knowledge with fairy tales. "Intelligent Design" is speculation. Evolutionary theories are theories. > > Quote
Guest Douglas Berry Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:15:47 GMT Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> said the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason... >On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:11:46 -0500 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >said the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of >1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason... > >>I have often thought about what kind of evidence >>would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >>existence. > >Simple. Tomorrrow morning, the following will occur. > >1. I will receive an email from a friend I haven't seen or heard from >in 15 years. This is a specific person I'm thinking of. Did not happen. >2. On leaving the apartment, a car on the main road will honk twice. Did not happen. >3. On the third stair from the bottom, I will find three pennies, from >left to right (my perspective) 1987 (heads) 1992 (tails) 2003 (tails) Did not happen. >4. At my second stop on my route, I will see three squirrels. Did not happen. >5. Finally, my favorite radio station will play The Kinks' >"Picturebook" at exactly 0937. Did not happen. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011 "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein Quote
Guest Santolina chamaecyparissus Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message > news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > Dan Wood wrote: > > > I have often thought about what kind of evidence > > > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > > > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > > > are materialist, could they possibility accept any > > > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > > > constitute evidence. > > > > It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what > > the evidence for its existence is. > > > I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist That's not necessarily so, and even if true would not necessarily mean that they couldn't be pursuaded by a purely rational argument. > what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order > to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. > Just tell us what you have. That's the logical starting point. Quote
Guest Santolina chamaecyparissus Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message > news:1162245541.096918.169730@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Dan Wood wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just provide ANY evidence that leads inescapably to the conclusion of > > > > your deity. > > > > > > > To what purpose? For what reason? > > > > To answer the titular question. > > > Since one cannot detect God with the five senses, the answer > has to be otherwise. > And that answer would be... Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On 31 Oct 2006 18:55:25 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote: - Refer: <1162349725.632494.163490@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> > >Dan Wood wrote: >> "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >> news:1162245541.096918.169730@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Dan Wood wrote: >> > >> > > > >> > > > Just provide ANY evidence that leads inescapably to the conclusion of >> > > > your deity. >> > > > >> > > To what purpose? For what reason? >> > >> > To answer the titular question. >> > >> Since one cannot detect God with the five senses, the answer >> has to be otherwise. >> > >And that answer would be... "Doctor"(!) Wood detects his god with his rectum. -- Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.