Guest Dan Wood Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:1162819918.920217.64490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Dan Wood wrote: > > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > > news:5liok2dvok01e7umu04ms3a2dnul4uk66f@4ax.com... > > > On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1162607770.840465.115240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > > > >> Dan Wood wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > If you responded, I failed to see it, and I apologize. > > > >> > Please repost your answer to my question as to what > > > >> > would constitute evidence for the existence of God > > > >> > in your mind: > > > >> > > > >> It works like this: you tell us what it is, then tell us the evidence > > > >> for its existence. > > > >> > > > >> If what you say has merit then atheists of good conscience will > > > >> aknowledge so. > > > >> If there is no such thing as an atheist of good conscience (there are, > > > >> but if there are none by YOUR estimation) then the entire exercise is a > > > >> waste of time from the start and your question disingenuous from the > > > >> start. > > > >> > > > >For the record, I have _never_ claimed nor do I think there > > > >are _no_ atheist of good conscience. I _know_ for a fact > > > >there are. > > > >I know atheist who are honest, good, loving, law abiding > > > >people - I certainly would call these, people of good > > > >conscience. > > > >> > > > >> If you continue to refuse to answer then you will continue to look like > > > >> an idiot. > > > >> > > > >I retitled the subject of the original thread which someone > > > >labeled: "NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > > >(All capital letters his/hers) > > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > > > >for God? (IOW if God is not a being made of matter, then > > > >one cannot expect to examine matter from his essentia; > > > >nor be able to get a biopsy of him, directly observe > > > >him or detect him by any of our five senses.) For this > > > >question, I've received absolutely no answer. > > > > > > Yes you have, and it has been answered many times. > > > > > > Not true! No one has suggest ways to prove the existance > > of a non-material being through material evidence. > > > That is because there is no way to do it, and that fact is a good > reason to be an atheist. That is the answer to your question, and you > have been given that answer in many forms. > No! that is _my_ position. From the beginning I have made the argument there can be no material evidence for a no-material being. Consequently, the origional heading NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTANCE OF GOD is a mute issue. This statement led me to ask about the nature of evidence that would be acceptiable. > The question tries to make the total lack of evidence a problem for atheists. It is not. > An atheist first proposed this as a challenge to believers. I think I took a reason position. I have admitted all along that there can be no observible, verifiable, empirical evidence for God whom I believe is a spiritual being. > > > > > > > So, in my > > > >opinion, due to lack of common basis for discourse there > > > >is no possibility of dissuading nonbelievers. Trying to > > > >do so, I think it is an exercise in futility. It seems that > > > >my view on this has been entirely missed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I have not always been a believer. Until a about decade ago > > > >I was indifferent to the issue. I didn't know, didn't care and > > > >hardly gave a thought to any of this. But I became interested > > > >after reading about some recent developments in astronomy > > > >and physics. > > > >I learned there is a massive amount of _indirect_ evidence, > > > >completely unknown to me at the time. But this indirect > > > >evidence served to convinced _me_ of the very real > > > >possibility for the existence of a superintelligint all-powerful > > > >being beyond the mere physical, natural world. So this is > > > >my position and this is where I'm comming from. > > > > > > Your position is quite common. You claim to have evidence, > > > > > > I've asked, what would be evidence that you could accept. I > > have on several ocassions asked, because I do not know. And > > no one has said I would accept _ _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ (this) as: > > "EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > You have been told that objective evidence would be accepted. You have > said that you have none. > > > > > > > > It's obvious my question has been avoided. The fact is no > > on has an answer. > > It is obvious that your question has been answered in the only way it > could be answered. > Which is _no_ answer. > > > > > > > > > but when > > > you are asked for it you fail to give it. You even claim that there > > > is "massive" evidence, > > > > > > Wrong! you misconstrue everything. Read the above statement > > I said there is a massive amount of INDIRECT evidence. This > > served to convince ME..... > > > Calling it "indirect" changes nothing. You have presented no evidence > beyond pointing out that we don't understand everything about the > existence of the universe, but not knowing is not evidence for a > particular answer. > IOW you don't think there is no difference between , hands on, physical, direct evidence and indirect evidence. I disagree. The dam I proposed is composed of material, concrete stone steel. To me the very existance of this dam is indirect evidence of a builder. > > > > > which should make it easy for you to mention > > > some of it; but so far you have offered nothing beyond the usual > > > accusation that atheists would reject the evidence. > > > > > > > You are still misstating my position. I have pointed out that > > I know of no common basis for discourse. Since I don't > > know of any natural or material evidence. > > Then you have no evidence. > > > > The fact of the > > matter is; I do not believe there can be natural evidence for > > a supernatural entity, > > Good reason to not believe in one. > > > >I only know of _indirect_ evidence which > > served to convince _me_. I've been unable to even get the > > very concept of "indirect evidence" across. No one seems > > to comprehend the meaning of indirect evidence. They > > keep demanding "evidence" which is not the same. > > > Evidence is something that can be presented. The existence of the > universe is no more evidence for a deity than a dam is evidence for > intelligent beavers. > Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:uUA3h.4854$U76.3648@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > > I have observed over the past several months that non- > believers have frequently visited Christian Newsgroups > for the purpose of challenging Christian to prove the > existence of God. No. Chalenges are to those who claim god (and their individual religious beliefs) as fact. Any christian who understand that they are talking about only personal religious beliefs is rarely, if ever, challenged. Although most Christians believe > that religion is based, not upon proof, but faith. Well then, why aren't these rational christians joining the argument against the fanatical fundamentalist? Most > people at times do have doubts, this I believe is human. > And Christians are no different. There is no scientificly > objective, verifiable evidence possible since God is not > subject to be observed, tested, dissected, analyzed > under a microscope or viewed through a telescope. > > While unnessary, if there were some evidence of the > existance of God this, I think would certainly be > welcome by many Christians. God, if the Christian > concept of God is taken into account, if he exist, no one > believes he is "natural" I.E. has no material body made up > of the 100+ natural occuring elements of the Periodic > table. Thus Christians believe God is a Spirit. > But we are natural and we live in a material > universe. We sense our world through our five > senses or the extensions thereof. > > There is no scientific instrument; no observation; no > scientifically verifiable, empirical, methological test > designed to detect the existence of God. If there is > evidence of the existence of God it must be indirect > evidence. > There are numerous Scientific discoveries in recent > years which has religious implications. The religious > implications has not escaped the scientific community, > especially the astronomers and physicist; and many > secular scientist are not happy about it. >> > The first clue that suggest the possibility, that there > might have been a creation was the discovery, by > astronomier that the universe had a beginning. Most > scientist had accepted the ancient hypothesis that the > universe was static, unchanging and eternal without > beginning and without end. The scientific belief (theory) was that the unverse was constant. Facts and evidence discovered lately show evidence of a "big bang" 15 billion years ago. NEITHER of these is, in any way shape or form, evidence for ANY god - and particulary, one specific god. (snip stories about scientists discovering the "big bang".) > > I'm not alone in the recognizing religious implications > of this universe with a beginning and the possibility > of a creator, in spite of secularist scientist who > "refuse to speculate". Speculate what .. that the "christian religion" was true and unchallengable? No matter what you bellow, or how you distort the facts, the big bang was NOT evidence with any religous implications. > In an interview with Stephen Hawking John Boslough > in his book Stephen Hawking's Universe , quoting > Hawking, "the odds against a universe like ours > emerging out of something like the Big Bang are > enormous, I think, there are clearly religious > implications whenever you start to discuss the origins > of the universe. There must be religious overtones. > But I think most scientist prefer to shy away from the > religious aspect of it". > (John Boslough, 1980, pg.109) Because any religious implications are nothing more than personal opinion - no matter what zealots - or even Hawkings, state. Thousands of years ago, people, no doubt, bellowed that lightning and thunder were implications of a god. Same irrational logic! > The English scientist Edward Milne wrote a mathematical > treatise on relativity concluded.....as to the first cause, > of the universe, in the context of the expansion, that > is left to the reader to insert, but our picture is incompelete > without him". > (Jastrow, '78, 102) >> > This to me is indirect evidence of a creator. But it alone > in and of itself does not suffice to demonstrate the role > of God in the Creation of the Universe. But there is > considerably more _indirect_ evidence of a creator. To you, anything YOU imagine could be evidence of a creator. That does NOT make it rational, reasonable or anything CLOSE to fact. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:21:56 -0500, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> wrote: > >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:uUA3h.4854$U76.3648@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >> >> >> I have observed over the past several months that non- >> believers have frequently visited Christian Newsgroups >> for the purpose of challenging Christian to prove the >> existence of God. > > >No. Chalenges are to those who claim god (and their individual religious >beliefs) as fact. Wood knows that and is being deliberately dishonest. >Any christian who understand that they are talking about only personal >religious beliefs is rarely, if ever, challenged. > >Although most Christians believe >> that religion is based, not upon proof, but faith. > >Well then, why aren't these rational christians joining the argument against >the fanatical fundamentalist? I think they see it in terms of the fundies' freedom of religion. The moderates only tend to speak out when they are directly on the receiving end of it, which they aren't usually. It's atheists, mormons and a few others who get the full treatment by fundies. Too few of them speak out against it, which in the real world means tacit acceptance. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:temuk2drah24jvo6ei10jnvc1akd1mab92@4ax.com... > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:42:06 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message > >news:fktjk29dgej38pdd1jc0fn7nfj15i6nmqi@4ax.com... > >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:45:26 +1030, Michael Gray > >> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:32:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee > >> ><calee@optonline.net> wrote: > >> > - Refer: <v28ik2peja3qf5f23u81vnqvni18s85uff@4ax.com> > >> >>On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:27:32 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>>"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >> >>>news:i0igk2t6tv1u3jdq4s5de1ietce3s2sqti@4ax.com... > >> >>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:44:36 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> >>>> 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 > >> >>>> >what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order > >> >>>> >to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> No, your question is both dishonest and absurd. > >> >>>> > >> >>>No, it is not. I have no idea as to what would be acceptable to > >> >>>people who cannot think except in terms of material naturalism. > >> >>>That which I see as evidence does not impress those who > >> >>>cannot get beyond the narrow channel of materialism. And it > >> >>>is obvious that there is no answer to my question. > >> >> > >> >>You're doing it again. Inventing falsehoods and using them as ad > >> >>hominems. > >> > > >> >He is floundering around, worrying about why he has ZERO evidence for > >> >his beliefs. > >> >This plainly disturbs him to the point where his sociopath forces him > >> >to confabulate to an astounding degree, for a supposedly educated > >> >adult. > >> > >> Dan may be an adult chronologically, but like all theists, on an > >> emotional and intellectual level he's still a child who believes in > >> Santa Claus. As for his being educated... he may well be, but his > >> posting history shows little evidence of it. > >> > >Unfortunately, it's impossible to reason with people who are so > >biased that they will cannot carry ion a logical reasoned > >discussion. > > Dan, I have yet to see anything from you that would indicate to me > that you're even capable of logical reasoning. > > >The only strategy > > ???" I rest my case. > > >they know is personal insults. > >Such people are not worth my time. > > Au contraire, Danny Boy. It's you who are not worth our time. We > aren't interested in playing your little game of "ask a question and > ignore the answers", > You have given no answer, because there is no direct answer has been my stance from the beginning of this discussion. Therefore your initial challengeheader "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF GOD" is a mute statement. > nor are we interested in your "indirect > evidence", > I know, I always suspected that non-believers generally are not interested in a honest, reasonable discourse. Their _only_ religious inclination is to challenge and demean religion and attack believers. Then tell themselves that it is they under attack. > which is really nothing more than your personal, highly > subjective opinion. It doesn't show that a god exists, it only shows > that you believe a god exists. We've heard it all before and it > proves nothing. Run along now, and come back when you have the real > thing. > The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. It's an unreal, illogical expectation. It won't happen! Nevertheless there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF GOD Dan > > > > > >Dan Wood > >> > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> wrote in message news:12kurpkhnne12f5@corp.supernews.com... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:uUA3h.4854$U76.3648@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > I have observed over the past several months that non- > > believers have frequently visited Christian Newsgroups > > for the purpose of challenging Christian to prove the > > existence of God. > > > No. Chalenges are to those who claim god (and their individual religious > beliefs) as fact. > This does not describe the overwhelming majority of Christians. If you think so, what about these challenges? There are several headers on alt.religion.Christian; to name only a few: 7 CHALLENGES FOR ALL CHRISTIANS A RELIGIOUS CHALLENGE , A serious question on divine morality , THE GOD CHALLENGE , WAITING FOR A CHRISTIAN NUT TO ANSWER This does not attempt to list the numerous sky pixie challenges and various insults and attack on Christians and the Christian religion. Mainstream Christians make no such claims as their religion is based up fact. > > Any christian who understand that they are talking about only personal > religious beliefs is rarely, if ever, challenged. > > Although most Christians believe > > that religion is based, not upon proof, but faith. > > Well then, why aren't these rational christians joining the argument against > the fanatical fundamentalist? > Most of the sects make such claims. Mainstream Christians have little regard for these groups. They come knocking on doors of usually in pairs and bringing their own scriptures such as watchtower bibles another, a sex based sect, send missionaries to Christians bringing their scripture i.e. Book of Mormon Pearl of Great Price etc. > > Most > > people at times do have doubts, this I believe is human. > > And Christians are no different. There is no scientificly > > objective, verifiable evidence possible since God is not > > subject to be observed, tested, dissected, analyzed > > under a microscope or viewed through a telescope. > > > > While unnessary, if there were some evidence of the > > existance of God this, I think would certainly be > > welcome by many Christians. God, if the Christian > > concept of God is taken into account, if he exist, no one > > believes he is "natural" I.E. has no material body made up > > of the 100+ natural occuring elements of the Periodic > > table. Thus Christians believe God is a Spirit. > > But we are natural and we live in a material > > universe. We sense our world through our five > > senses or the extensions thereof. > > > > There is no scientific instrument; no observation; no > > scientifically verifiable, empirical, methological test > > designed to detect the existence of God. If there is > > evidence of the existence of God it must be indirect > > evidence. > > There are numerous Scientific discoveries in recent > > years which has religious implications. The religious > > implications has not escaped the scientific community, > > especially the astronomers and physicist; and many > > secular scientist are not happy about it. > >> > > The first clue that suggest the possibility, that there > > might have been a creation was the discovery, by > > astronomier that the universe had a beginning. Most > > scientist had accepted the ancient hypothesis that the > > universe was static, unchanging and eternal without > > beginning and without end. > > The scientific belief (theory) was that the unverse was constant. > Facts and evidence discovered lately show evidence of a "big bang" 15 > billion years ago. > NEITHER of these is, in any way shape or form, evidence for ANY god - and > particulary, one specific god. > > > > (snip stories about scientists discovering the "big bang".) > > > > > I'm not alone in the recognizing religious implications > > of this universe with a beginning and the possibility > > of a creator, in spite of secularist scientist who > > "refuse to speculate". > > Speculate what .. that the "christian religion" was true and unchallengable? > No matter what you bellow, or how you distort the facts, the big bang was > NOT evidence with any religous implications. > Quite a few scientist disagree with you. Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, Martin Rees to name but a few. > > > In an interview with Stephen Hawking John Boslough > > in his book Stephen Hawking's Universe , quoting > > Hawking, "the odds against a universe like ours > > emerging out of something like the Big Bang are > > enormous, I think, there are clearly religious > > implications whenever you start to discuss the origins > > of the universe. There must be religious overtones. > > But I think most scientist prefer to shy away from the > > religious aspect of it". > > (John Boslough, 1980, pg.109) > > Because any religious implications are nothing more than personal opinion - > no matter what zealots - or even Hawkings, state. > So, you are more of an authority than Hawking? > > Thousands of years ago, people, no doubt, bellowed that lightning and > thunder were implications of a god. > Same irrational logic! > I never claimed that I could convince you of anything, nor do I have any desire to! I have said only that I have seen indirect evidence that convinces me that there is a definate possibility of a creator who created the our universe. > > > The English scientist Edward Milne wrote a mathematical > > treatise on relativity concluded.....as to the first cause, > > of the universe, in the context of the expansion, that > > is left to the reader to insert, but our picture is incompelete > > without him". > > (Jastrow, '78, 102) > >> > > This to me is indirect evidence of a creator. But it alone > > in and of itself does not suffice to demonstrate the role > > of God in the Creation of the Universe. But there is > > considerably more _indirect_ evidence of a creator. > > To you, anything YOU imagine could be evidence of a > creator. That does NOT > make it rational, reasonable or anything CLOSE to fact. > You are attributing a position to me which I do not hold. I've imagined nothing. The evidence is real. And I've said nothing about my interpretation being _fact_. But it is a reasonable intrepretation of the evidence. Furthermore, you have offered nothing to explain the evidence which I have offered. Are you like the other secular scientist - refusing to speculate ? I have presented a brief account of some indirect evidence which served to convince me of the _possibility_ of God. This is only a small portion, but it is essential since the most important evidence is based upon the Big Bang and the fundamental evidence that the universe had a beginning. I have yet to offer the evidence which is by far the most amazing discoveries. More if interested. Regards, Dan > Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... snip > > > > >Actually, I didn't. I attempted to demonstrate that the result > > > > >of some past activities could be seen as indirect evidence. > > > > > > > > In other words you contradicted yourself, since what you observed, > > > > the universe is material; yet you said that there could be no > > > > material evidence for a deity. > > > > > > > > > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. > > > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. > > > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as > > > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, > > > > I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have also > > explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning (you > > yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the > > reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there > > could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying that > > the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect > > evidence" does not make it less material. > > > I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder > of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder > to examine. Actually you do. It is the evidence that you do not have for a creator of the universe. You actually referred to this evidence what you said that you could see the dam was unnatural. In other words you have experience of things that are constructed by man and things that are part of nature. Based on that experience (evidence) you could see that the dam was not part of nature and therefore (in all likelihood) was built by men. >So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence > of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. It is evidence (calling it indirect does not make it any less material). The rest of the evidence is your experience with other constructed objects and with natural objects. Based on that experience (evidence) you can see that something was constructed. That experience is what you lack when considering the universe. You know the universe exists. You know it part of nature. You do not have any experience with anything in nature being constructed; if you did how could you know that the dam was not part of nature. In short you are making an assumption based solely on your opinion that it just must have had a creator. Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > news:1162819918.920217.64490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > snip > > > > >I retitled the subject of the original thread which someone > > > > >labeled: "NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > > > >(All capital letters his/hers) > > > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > > > > >for God? (IOW if God is not a being made of matter, then > > > > >one cannot expect to examine matter from his essentia; > > > > >nor be able to get a biopsy of him, directly observe > > > > >him or detect him by any of our five senses.) For this > > > > >question, I've received absolutely no answer. > > > > > > > > Yes you have, and it has been answered many times. > > > > > > > > > Not true! No one has suggest ways to prove the existance > > > of a non-material being through material evidence. > > > > > > That is because there is no way to do it, and that fact is a good > > reason to be an atheist. That is the answer to your question, and you > > have been given that answer in many forms. > > > No! that is _my_ position. > From the beginning I have made the argument there can be no > material evidence for a no-material being. Consequently, the > origional heading NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTANCE OF > GOD is a mute issue. This statement led me to ask about > the nature of evidence that would be acceptiable. It is not a mute issue. It is the issue. That is what you fail or refuse to see. The lack of evidence for a god is the problem of the person claiming there is a god. For a non-believer it is merely a very good reason not to believe in a god. Objective evidence and nothing but objective evidence is acceptable, and that position is completely reasonable. > > > > The question tries to make > the total lack of evidence a problem for atheists. It is not. > > > An atheist first proposed this as a challenge to believers. > I think I took a reason position. I have admitted all along > that there can be no observible, verifiable, empirical > evidence for God whom I believe is a spiritual being. Good, then we agree that there is no evidence. > > > > > > > > > > So, in my > > > > >opinion, due to lack of common basis for discourse there > > > > >is no possibility of dissuading nonbelievers. Trying to > > > > >do so, I think it is an exercise in futility. It seems that > > > > >my view on this has been entirely missed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I have not always been a believer. Until a about decade ago > > > > >I was indifferent to the issue. I didn't know, didn't care and > > > > >hardly gave a thought to any of this. But I became interested > > > > >after reading about some recent developments in astronomy > > > > >and physics. > > > > >I learned there is a massive amount of _indirect_ evidence, > > > > >completely unknown to me at the time. But this indirect > > > > >evidence served to convinced _me_ of the very real > > > > >possibility for the existence of a superintelligint all-powerful > > > > >being beyond the mere physical, natural world. So this is > > > > >my position and this is where I'm comming from. > > > > > > > > Your position is quite common. You claim to have evidence, > > > > > > > > > I've asked, what would be evidence that you could accept. I > > > have on several ocassions asked, because I do not know. And > > > no one has said I would accept _ _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ (this) as: > > > "EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > > > You have been told that objective evidence would be accepted. You have > > said that you have none. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's obvious my question has been avoided. The fact is no > > > on has an answer. > > > > It is obvious that your question has been answered in the only way it > > could be answered. > > > Which is _no_ answer. Once again: The answer is that objective evidence is acceptable. You have none, nor have you come up with any reason why it would be reasonable to accept anything else. Your insistence that the lack of evidence is the non-believers problem is very odd, as is your insistence that your question has not been answered. There is no other kind of evidence available. You are asking us to come up with something that does not exist, and, when we point out that it doesn't exist, you say we have not answered. Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > news:1162819918.920217.64490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... snip > > It is obvious that your question has been answered in the only way it > > could be answered. > > > Which is _no_ answer. (I missed this part of your post in my first response) You have asked what kind of evidence besides material evidence would be accepted. There is none, and that answer has been given by me and by others. You do not like the answer, but your question has been honestly answered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > but when > > > > you are asked for it you fail to give it. You even claim that there > > > > is "massive" evidence, > > > > > > > > > Wrong! you misconstrue everything. Read the above statement > > > I said there is a massive amount of INDIRECT evidence. This > > > served to convince ME..... > > > > > > Calling it "indirect" changes nothing. You have presented no evidence > > beyond pointing out that we don't understand everything about the > > existence of the universe, but not knowing is not evidence for a > > particular answer. > > > IOW you don't think there is no difference between , hands on, > physical, direct evidence and indirect evidence. I have never said that there has to be something that one literally lays one's hands on or even sees with the naked eye. I disagree. The > dam I proposed is composed of material, concrete stone steel. > To me the very existance of this dam is indirect evidence of a builder. I agree, but only because you (as you yourself pointed out) you can see the difference between artificial and natural (knowledge based on experience with the material world) What I don't understand is why you think that you have presented non-material evidence. Above you even underline the fact that the dam is composed of material. > > > > > > > > which should make it easy for you to mention > > > > some of it; but so far you have offered nothing beyond the usual > > > > accusation that atheists would reject the evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > You are still misstating my position. I have pointed out that > > > I know of no common basis for discourse. Since I don't > > > know of any natural or material evidence. > > > > Then you have no evidence. > > > > > > > > The fact of the > > > matter is; I do not believe there can be natural evidence for > > > a supernatural entity, > > > > Good reason to not believe in one. > > > > > > >I only know of _indirect_ evidence which > > > served to convince _me_. I've been unable to even get the > > > very concept of "indirect evidence" across. No one seems > > > to comprehend the meaning of indirect evidence. They > > > keep demanding "evidence" which is not the same. > > > > > > Evidence is something that can be presented. The existence of the > > universe is no more evidence for a deity than a dam is evidence for > > intelligent beavers. (adding to my point above) If you had had no experience with seeing men build things or with the observed limitations of beavers, intelligent beavers would have been one of an infinite number of possibilities. Since you have no experience with anything in nature being constructed, your idea that god constructed it is not supported by any more evidence than that available for super-intelligent beavers, i.e. none. > > Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Hi, Dan! ALL "gods" exist only in the minds of believers who, imitating others, create their own deities based on their own beliefs about what a "god" must or should be like. Some just leave it at that, calling it "faith", which, in the biblical view, IS the sole "evidence" needed, while others attempt to offer extra "evidence" to "prove" that THEIR particular imaginary being "exists" in an objective, physical sense. BTW, Einstein identified the ONLY "God" that really does exist in the objective, physical sense. He called it "Spinoza's God". "Spinoza's fundamental insight...is that Nature is an indivisible, uncaused, substantial whole Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Depends on WHICH "GOD". A gigantic, long-bearded anthropomorph being holding the universe in his hand would probably satisfy most. -- L. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:26:00 -0700, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote: - Refer: <45513228.9050204@nothingbutthe.truth> >Depends on WHICH "GOD". >A gigantic, long-bearded anthropomorph being holding the universe >in his hand would probably satisfy most. -- L. Not Big Janice from the co-op, it wouldn't. -- Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:19:44 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message >news:temuk2drah24jvo6ei10jnvc1akd1mab92@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:42:06 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> snip >The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >It's an unreal, illogical expectation. It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not believe in something for which no evidence is available. >It won't happen! Nevertheless >there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. >And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: >INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff >on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE >OF GOD The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let alone a deity; but you ignore it. Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or the courage to respond to it: You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably constructed by men. When you observe the universe, you do not have any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists not responding to you. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest Azaliah Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: >>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. > >It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something >immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not >believe in something for which no evidence is available. There is evidence. People looking for God in a test tube, are being dishonest. Why do I say that? Step outside of whatever your beliefs are (or lack of them) and think about it for a moment. If you could put God in a test tube, He would not be God. You would. And it would actually be proof that He is not all powerful, or you could not have done that to Him. Thus, if you had God in a test tube, that mere fact would be proof against His Deity, not proof of His Deity. Thus, it is an illogical request to begin with and a false call for evidence that He is Who He says He is. Furthermore, think about this... What if God appeared right now and everyone in the world could see it? Would that be proof? No, because people would spend their time trying to explain it away naturally. Also, what would happen 2,000 years from now, when people read about it and watched videos of it? Would they believe it? Or would they spend their time trying to explain it away? We both know it would be the latter. (: But hey, He could do that for every generation, right? Well, then we run into that "anti-proof" situation again, since if He is jumping through hoops because man demands it, then He is submitting to the whim of man and is not the ruling authority of the universe and all that is. This is why faith is required. To have anything more, is to make God less than us. But hey, enter Jesus. There He is, 2,000 years ago, walking around healing people and performing other miracles and stated Himself to be God manifest in the flesh and what do we have? People, 2000 years later, claiming He didn't exist, or that the NT isn't evidence, which is a real joke of a claim, considering that the NT is not one book, but a collection of writings. People claim that because it makes claims of spiritual issues, that it isn't evidence. Huh?!? Caesar's that we have nut a single piece of textual evidence for, which isn't even direct evidence, but claims by people centuries later, claimed to be divine and to be a god and yet, where are the atheists saying that he didn't exist, or even that it isn't evidence, because of the religious claims in it? Even Titus is said to have performed healings, curing blindness and a man's leg and yet, who is saying that the text is not evidence of his existence? This is hypocrisy, plain and simple! (: >>It won't happen! Nevertheless >>there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. >>And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: >>INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff >>on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE >>OF GOD > >The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. This is strong evidence. Especially when you look at the scenario that is promoted as truth and the lack of any real answers, when the tough questions of "how" come. The response is, "We don't know", which makes it a matter of faith and yet, the atheist knocks the idea that God created the universe. Once again, this is nothing more than hypocrisy that the atheist denies and yet, is plainly there. (: >You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must >have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained >to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of >the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let >alone a deity; but you ignore it. You mean, in your opinion. >Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or >the courage to respond to it: > >You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen >men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience >you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to >conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably >constructed by men. When you observe the universe, you do not have >any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore >the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the >universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once >again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists >not responding to you. This is not true at all. One need not have anything to compare to at all. One can look at an object never before seen and tell that it was made by someone. And yes, a damn does work as an analogy. Take someone who has never seen one and has lived in the jungle all of his life and knows nothing of science and show it to him and I guarantee you, the first question out of his mouth will be, "Who built this amazing thing?". Pretending that something isn't so, doesn't make your problem go away and pretending that something isn't evidence, because you choose to have faith in the impossible and call it "reason", does not mean that it isn't evidence. Rather, to claim that, is the abandonment of common sense. And I'll tell you up front that I don't waste my time arguing in circles with someone who knows better and simply chooses to reject whatever he doesn't want to believe, simply because he doesn't want to believe it and then claims it is the other person who is rejecting evidence and believing in a fantasy, when in reality, he has made no argument at all and believes that a dot popped into existence out of nothingness all by itself, expanded and did the opposite of what we know matter does and someone became a functioning universe and then furthermore tries to claim that this is not an upward progress. (: In a recent poll, Isaac Newton was voted the greatest scientist that ever lived. Most people barely scratch the surface of knowing what his contributions were. And atheists are upset that he spent more time writing spiritual books than scientific texts. But as the old Isaac Newton story goes... Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist, but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout believer, and they often locked horns over this question, though their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving around this were smaller balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, in their proper order. These balls were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony by turning the crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his friend stepped in. He was scientist enough to recognize at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?". Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!". Quickly turning to Newton the infidel said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this thing?". Looking up, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody had made it but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.". Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder and said: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such incongruous conclusion?". The infidel was at once convinced and became a firm believer that "Jehovah, He is the God.". I Kings 18:39 As I said, I won't bother going around in circles with you. You are not new to these forums, nor this discussion and so, I know that you are just looking to keep repeating the same things and to hand wave away anything presented. Thus, I leave you to your unbelief and hope that you come to believe. -- Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" <((>< <((>< <((>< "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17 .. Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Azaliah wrote: > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, > thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: > > > >>>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >>>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >>>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. >> >>It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something >>immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not >>believe in something for which no evidence is available. > > > There is evidence. People looking for God in a test tube, > are being dishonest. Why do I say that? Step outside of > whatever your beliefs are (or lack of them) and think about > it for a moment. If you could put God in a test tube, He > would not be God. You would. And it would actually be > proof that He is not all powerful, or you could not have > done that to Him. Thus, if you had God in a test tube, > that mere fact would be proof against His Deity, not proof > of His Deity. Thus, it is an illogical request to begin with > and a false call for evidence that He is Who He says He is. ===>That only tells us what kind of "GOD" you have constructed in YOUR mind. - Would not fit in a test tube - "All powerful" (whatever that means) - "More than us" (whatever that means) - A fellow from Galilee who, according to you, (but NOT according to any of the stories about him) "stated Himself to be God manifest in the flesh" > > Furthermore, think about this... What if God appeared > right now and everyone in the world could see it? > Would that be proof? No, because people would spend > their time trying to explain it away naturally. Also, what > would happen 2,000 years from now, when people read > about it and watched videos of it? Would they believe it? > Or would they spend their time trying to explain it away? > We both know it would be the latter. (: > > But hey, He could do that for every generation, right? > Well, then we run into that "anti-proof" situation again, > since if He is jumping through hoops because man > demands it, then He is submitting to the whim of man > and is not the ruling authority of the universe and all > that is. > > This is why faith is required. To have anything more, > is to make God less than us. But hey, enter Jesus. > There He is, 2,000 years ago, walking around healing > people and performing other miracles and stated Himself > to be God manifest in the flesh and what do we have? > People, 2000 years later, claiming He didn't exist, ===>There's no historical evidence that that logically impossible, self-contradicting schizophrenic person ever existed. The gospel character is an obvious composite of several would-be Jewis "messiahs", with a good dose of creative, imaginative characterisation added by the writers of dozens of "gospels", four of which were selected, edited and incorporated in the "Bible" (="Books) collection by Church authorities. But if THAT is your idea of a "GOD", so be it. It is still your mental construct, since you have never seen that "Jesus" > or that the NT isn't evidence, which is a real joke > of a claim, considering that the NT is not one book, > but a collection of writings. ===>So is the collection by the B rothers Grimm (fairy tales). How does that prove it is "evidence"? Oh, well........... Either you go by blind faith, or if that's not strong enough, you try to find "evidence", whish simply does '\not exist. WARNING: Thinking can be hazardous to your faith. -- L. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:35:19 GMT, Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <66p3l21b5bsrf15cn18j9ethrp239fkbel@4ax.com> >On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, >thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: > > >>>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >>>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >>>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. >> >>It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something >>immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not >>believe in something for which no evidence is available. > >There is evidence. : Liar. -- Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:c4i3l2h5kka3oj098p8lkpc1koosu8i4vd@4ax.com... > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:19:44 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message > >news:temuk2drah24jvo6ei10jnvc1akd1mab92@4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:42:06 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > snip > Sorry, for the delay, I had to go out of town for a couple of days. > > >The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to > >capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. > >It's an unreal, illogical expectation. > > It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something > immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not > believe in something for which no evidence is available. > > >It won't happen! Nevertheless > >there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. > >And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: > >INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff > >on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE > >OF GOD > > The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. > You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must > have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained > to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of > the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let > alone a deity; but you ignore it. > > Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or > the courage to respond to it: > > You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen > men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience > you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to > conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably > constructed by men. > Not true, astronomers have for decades searched for signs of intelligent life in space. If your premise were valid, then $millions have been wasted, so far and more $10millions will yet be spent in the future futile searching for something which we cannot recognize if we find it. It will be a repeat of the Christopher Columbus joke. > When you observe the universe, you do not have > any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore > the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the > universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once > again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists > not responding to you. > I haven't lied, Nor have I accused atheist of not responding - just not answering my question. But then I answered it for myself. There is no answer, there can be no answer for the simple reason God is immaterial, therefore, it is impossible to find material evidence for an immaterial being. It's an irrational expectation. Hence the statement: "NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTANCE OF GOD" is a mute point! And it's irrational to pose it! But this fact does not discount the possibility of God's existence. I am convinced the evidence _infers_ the existence of a creator of the Universe. Regards, Dan > > Thomas P. > > "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" > > (Kierkegaard) > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 "Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:66p3l21b5bsrf15cn18j9ethrp239fkbel@4ax.com... > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, > thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: > > > >>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to > >>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. > >>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. > > > >It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something > >immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not > >believe in something for which no evidence is available. > > There is evidence. People looking for God in a test tube, > are being dishonest. Why do I say that? Step outside of > whatever your beliefs are (or lack of them) and think about > it for a moment. If you could put God in a test tube, He > would not be God. You would. And it would actually be > proof that He is not all powerful, or you could not have > done that to Him. Thus, if you had God in a test tube, > that mere fact would be proof against His Deity, not proof > of His Deity. Thus, it is an illogical request to begin with > and a false call for evidence that He is Who He says He is. > > Furthermore, think about this... What if God appeared > right now and everyone in the world could see it? > Would that be proof? No, because people would spend > their time trying to explain it away naturally. Also, what > would happen 2,000 years from now, when people read > about it and watched videos of it? Would they believe it? > Or would they spend their time trying to explain it away? > We both know it would be the latter. (: > > But hey, He could do that for every generation, right? > Well, then we run into that "anti-proof" situation again, > since if He is jumping through hoops because man > demands it, then He is submitting to the whim of man > and is not the ruling authority of the universe and all > that is. > > This is why faith is required. To have anything more, > is to make God less than us. But hey, enter Jesus. > There He is, 2,000 years ago, walking around healing > people and performing other miracles and stated Himself > to be God manifest in the flesh and what do we have? > People, 2000 years later, claiming He didn't exist, > or that the NT isn't evidence, which is a real joke > of a claim, considering that the NT is not one book, > but a collection of writings. People claim that because > it makes claims of spiritual issues, that it isn't evidence. > > Huh?!? Caesar's that we have not a single piece of > textual evidence for, which isn't even direct evidence, > but claims by people centuries later, claimed to be > divine and to be a god and yet, where are the atheists > saying that he didn't exist, or even that it isn't evidence, > because of the religious claims in it? > > Even Titus is said to have performed healings, curing > blindness and a man's leg and yet, who is saying that > the text is not evidence of his existence? > > This is hypocrisy, plain and simple! (: > > > >>It won't happen! Nevertheless > >>there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. > >>And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: > >>INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff > >>on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE > >>OF GOD > > > >The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. > > This is strong evidence. Especially when you look at > the scenario that is promoted as truth and the lack of > any real answers, when the tough questions of "how" > come. The response is, "We don't know", which makes > it a matter of faith and yet, the atheist knocks the idea > that God created the universe. Once again, this is > nothing more than hypocrisy that the atheist denies > and yet, is plainly there. (: > In the Prologue of "Our Cosmic Habitat", by Martin Rees, the opining paragraph reads: "The preeminent mystery is why anything exist at all. What breathes life into the equations of physics, and actualizes them in the real cosmos?" (Rees, 2001, pg. xi) He poses the questions, but offers no explanation. I find it curious that atheist frown upon Philosophers and theologicans argument that _only_ God can create something out of nothing, yet they offer nothing except propositions, guesses and suppositions without a shread of solid empirical evidence in support. > > >You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must > >have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained > >to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of > >the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let > >alone a deity; but you ignore it. > > You mean, in your opinion. > What I was attempting to do with the dam analogy was to demonstrate in the _absence_ of a dam builder, that one can infer a builder, from the very existance of the material dam. But due to the answers From the responses I've received, I'm not sure my point was understood. > I found a vacated insect nest in a building in my back yard. It was a shallow cone about four inches in diameter with dozens of small closely packed, empty, equally sized and identically shaped cells. Probably built by some species of wasp which I never saw. But from the nest one can infer the existence of builders. > > >Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or > >the courage to respond to it: > > > >You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen > >men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience > >you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to > >conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably > >constructed by men. When you observe the universe, you do not have > >any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore > >the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the > >universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once > >again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists > >not responding to you. > > This is not true at all. One need not have anything to > compare to at all. One can look at an object never before > seen and tell that it was made by someone. And yes, > a damn does work as an analogy. Take someone who > has never seen one and has lived in the jungle all of > his life and knows nothing of science and show it to him > and I guarantee you, the first question out of his mouth > will be, "Who built this amazing thing?". > > Pretending that something isn't so, doesn't make your > problem go away and pretending that something isn't > evidence, because you choose to have faith in the > impossible and call it "reason", does not mean that > it isn't evidence. Rather, to claim that, is the abandonment > of common sense. And I'll tell you up front that I don't > waste my time arguing in circles with someone who > knows better and simply chooses to reject whatever > he doesn't want to believe, simply because he doesn't > want to believe it and then claims it is the other person > who is rejecting evidence and believing in a fantasy, > when in reality, he has made no argument at all and > believes that a dot popped into existence out of > nothingness all by itself, expanded and did the > opposite of what we know matter does and someone > became a functioning universe and then furthermore > tries to claim that this is not an upward progress. (: > > In a recent poll, Isaac Newton was voted the greatest > scientist that ever lived. Most people barely scratch > the surface of knowing what his contributions were. > And atheists are upset that he spent more time > writing spiritual books than scientific texts. > > But as the old Isaac Newton story goes... > > Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great > scientist, but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout > believer, and they often locked horns over this question, > though their mutual interest in science drew them much > together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica > of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large > gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving around this > were smaller balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying > lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, > Saturn, in their proper order. These balls were so geared > together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony > by turning the crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in > his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, > his friend stepped in. He was scientist enough to recognize > at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it he slowly > turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched > the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their > orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, "My! What an > exquisite thing this is! Who made it?". > > Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, > "Nobody!". Quickly turning to Newton the infidel said: > "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked > who made this thing?". Looking up, Newton solemnly > assured him that nobody had made it but that the aggregation > of matter so much admired had just happened to assume > the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with > some heat, "You must think I'm a fool! Of course somebody > made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.". > > Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on > his friend's shoulder and said: "This thing is but a puny > imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, > and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is > without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe > that the great original from which the design is taken has > come into being without either designer or maker! Now > tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such > incongruous conclusion?". The infidel was at once convinced > and became a firm believer that "Jehovah, He is the God.". > I Kings 18:39 > > As I said, I won't bother going around in circles with you. > You are not new to these forums, nor this discussion and > so, I know that you are just looking to keep repeating > the same things and to hand wave away anything presented. > Thus, I leave you to your unbelief and hope that you come > to believe. > This is a most amazing post. Excellent, Brilliant! I'm at a loss to express my deep appreciation and respect for your thoughts and impressions. Best Regards, Dan Wood > -- > > Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" > > <((>< <((>< <((>< > > "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." > - John 17:17 > . Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message news:45513228.9050204@nothingbutthe.truth... > Depends on WHICH "GOD". > Why? > > A gigantic, long-bearded anthropomorph being holding the universe > in his hand would probably satisfy most. -- L. > Be serious. Dan Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:56:00 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >news:c4i3l2h5kka3oj098p8lkpc1koosu8i4vd@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:19:44 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message >> >news:temuk2drah24jvo6ei10jnvc1akd1mab92@4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:42:06 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> snip >> >Sorry, for the delay, I had to go out of town for a couple of days. > >> >> >The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >> >capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >> >It's an unreal, illogical expectation. >> >> It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something >> immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not >> believe in something for which no evidence is available. >> >> >It won't happen! Nevertheless >> >there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. >> >And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: >> >INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff >> >on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE >> >OF GOD >> >> The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. >> You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must >> have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained >> to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of >> the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let >> alone a deity; but you ignore it. >> >> Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or >> the courage to respond to it: >> >> You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen >> men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience >> you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to >> conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably >> constructed by men. >> >Not true, astronomers have for decades searched for signs of >intelligent life in space. If your premise were valid, then $millions >have been wasted, so far and more $10millions will yet be spent >in the future futile searching for something which we cannot >recognize if we find it. It will be a repeat of the >Christopher Columbus joke. The above has nothing to do with what I wrote, and furthermore it makes no sense, since we do know what intelligence is and therefore do have a basis for recognizing it. >> > When you observe the universe, you do not have >> any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore >> the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the >> universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once >> again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists >> not responding to you. >> >I haven't lied, Yes you have. Your questions have been repeatedly answered. You have claimed that they have not. That is just one of your lies. >Nor have I accused atheist of not responding - just not >answering my question. Since they have been answered, that is a lie. >But then I answered it for myself. There is no answer, there >can be no answer for the simple reason God is immaterial, Meaning that he is indistinguishable from something that is non-existent. >therefore, >it is impossible to find material evidence for an immaterial being. It's >an irrational expectation. Hence the statement: >"NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTANCE OF GOD" is a mute point! >And it's irrational to pose it! No, it is irrational to insist that there is a god, since there is no evidence of one. If somebody makes the claim that this god exists, asking for evidence for the claim is quite reasonable. You are trying to make your failure to provide evidence a failure of the person asking for it. That has been explained to you, and that is the answer you ignore. >But this fact does not discount the possibility of God's existence. I agree. It just means that there is no objective reason to believe in its existence. >I am convinced the evidence _infers_ the existence of a creator >of the Universe. The evidence which you have never presented. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:24:02 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:66p3l21b5bsrf15cn18j9ethrp239fkbel@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, >> thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: >> >> >> >>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >> >>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >> >>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. >> > >> >It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something >> >immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not >> >believe in something for which no evidence is available. >> >> There is evidence. So you continue to claim. People looking for God in a test tube, >> are being dishonest. Why do I say that? Step outside of >> whatever your beliefs are (or lack of them) and think about >> it for a moment. If you could put God in a test tube, He >> would not be God. You would. And it would actually be >> proof that He is not all powerful, or you could not have >> done that to Him. Thus, if you had God in a test tube, >> that mere fact would be proof against His Deity, not proof >> of His Deity. Thus, it is an illogical request to begin with >> and a false call for evidence that He is Who He says He is. I have no idea who is trying to put god into a test tube. There is no evidence for your god, and that is good reason not to believe in him. >> >> Furthermore, think about this... What if God appeared >> right now and everyone in the world could see it? >> Would that be proof? No, because people would spend >> their time trying to explain it away naturally. Also, what >> would happen 2,000 years from now, when people read >> about it and watched videos of it? Would they believe it? >> Or would they spend their time trying to explain it away? >> We both know it would be the latter. (: No we do not know that. >> >> But hey, He could do that for every generation, right? >> Well, then we run into that "anti-proof" situation again, >> since if He is jumping through hoops because man >> demands it, then He is submitting to the whim of man >> and is not the ruling authority of the universe and all >> that is. Nobody is asking god to jump through hoops. >> >> This is why faith is required. To have anything more, >> is to make God less than us. Nonsense. But hey, enter Jesus. >> There He is, 2,000 years ago, walking around healing >> people and performing other miracles and stated Himself >> to be God manifest in the flesh and what do we have? A story just like all the other stories found in the religions that you reject. >> People, 2000 years later, claiming He didn't exist, >> or that the NT isn't evidence, which is a real joke >> of a claim, considering that the NT is not one book, >> but a collection of writings. One book or a collection of books makes no difference. It is not evidence. >People claim that because >> it makes claims of spiritual issues, that it isn't evidence. That would be nonsense, and it is a strawman argument. >> >> Huh?!? Caesar's that we have not a single piece of >> textual evidence for, which isn't even direct evidence, >> but claims by people centuries later, claimed to be >> divine and to be a god and yet, where are the atheists >> saying that he didn't exist, or even that it isn't evidence, >> because of the religious claims in it? You should ask your strawman about it. >> >> Even Titus is said to have performed healings, curing >> blindness and a man's leg and yet, who is saying that >> the text is not evidence of his existence? >> >> This is hypocrisy, plain and simple! (: Nobody but your strawman is making such a silly claim. >> >> >> >>It won't happen! Nevertheless >> >>there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. >> >>And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: >> >>INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff >> >>on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE >> >>OF GOD >> > >> >The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. >> >> This is strong evidence. No, there is only your argument based on ignorance We don't know everything about the origins of the universe, that does not mean that there must be a god; but that is your argument. >Especially when you look at >> the scenario that is promoted as truth and the lack of >> any real answers, when the tough questions of "how" >> come. The response is, "We don't know", which makes >> it a matter of faith What is a matter of faith? The above makes no sense. >>and yet, the atheist knocks the idea >> that God created the universe. No, the idea that the universe is evidence for a god is knocked, and it has been explained why. >>Once again, this is >> nothing more than hypocrisy that the atheist denies >> and yet, is plainly there. (: Where is the hypocrisy? Do you even know what you are talking about? >> >In the Prologue of "Our Cosmic Habitat", by Martin Rees, >the opining paragraph reads: "The preeminent mystery is >why anything exist at all. What breathes life into the >equations of physics, and actualizes them in the real >cosmos?" >(Rees, 2001, pg. xi) >He poses the questions, but offers no explanation. I >find it curious that atheist frown upon Philosophers >and theologicans argument that _only_ God can create >something out of nothing, yet they offer nothing except >propositions, guesses and suppositions without a >shread of solid empirical evidence in support. In support of what? You are the one making a specific claim about the universe, and you are the one failing to provide evidence for that claim. >> >> >You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must >> >have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained >> >to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of >> >the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let >> >alone a deity; but you ignore it. >> >> You mean, in your opinion. >> >What I was attempting to do with the dam analogy was to demonstrate >in the _absence_ of a dam builder, that one can infer a builder, from >the very existance of the material dam. But due to the answers >From the responses I've received, I'm not sure my point was >understood. I understood the analogy quite well. I agreed with you. >> >I found a vacated insect nest in a building in my back yard. It was >a shallow cone about four inches in diameter with dozens of small >closely packed, empty, equally sized and identically shaped cells. >Probably built by some species of wasp which I never saw. But from >the nest one can infer the existence of builders. Yes. >> >> >Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or >> >the courage to respond to it: >> > >> >You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen >> >men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience >> >you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to >> >conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably >> >constructed by men. When you observe the universe, you do not have >> >any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore >> >the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the >> >universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once >> >again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists >> >not responding to you. >> >> This is not true at all. One need not have anything to >> compare to at all. One can look at an object never before >> seen and tell that it was made by someone. Yes, because you have experience with things that are made. And yes, >> a damn does work as an analogy. Take someone who >> has never seen one and has lived in the jungle all of >> his life and knows nothing of science and show it to him >> and I guarantee you, the first question out of his mouth >> will be, "Who built this amazing thing?". Since I have agreed with this, why do you keep repeating it? Are you really so obtuse? >> >> Pretending that something isn't so, doesn't make your >> problem go away and pretending that something isn't >> evidence, because you choose to have faith in the >> impossible and call it "reason", How very tedious. Please address your responses directly to your strawman, since clearly you do not want to deal with what I or others have been posting. snip of more of the same lies and distortions. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest The_Sage Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence >for God? The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed entity or object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to repeatedly and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, or felt. Of course, the only way for God to exist outside of anyone's imagination (read: outside of the storytales told of Him) is to pretend He exists. The Sage ============================================================= http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm "All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality -- history, religion, duty, social position -- all were illusions, mere opium fantasies" John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman ============================================================= Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 13, 2006 Posted November 13, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:70rdl2pe82dbuf20psgeq4b2cg259dco8q@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:24:02 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:66p3l21b5bsrf15cn18j9ethrp239fkbel@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, > >> thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: > >> > >> > >> >>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to > >> >>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. > >> >>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. > >> > > >> >It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something > >> >immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not > >> >believe in something for which no evidence is available. > >> > > >> There is evidence. > > So you continue to claim. > I misspoke, I meant there is indirect evidence - which infers a creator. But so what: you have shown that you are not honestly interested. You prefer to defend "nothing". But you go to great lengths to do so. If you win - you've won nothing. > > People looking for God in a test tube, > >> are being dishonest. Why do I say that? Step outside of > >> whatever your beliefs are (or lack of them) and think about > >> it for a moment. If you could put God in a test tube, Healternative explanations in order to "get the zebra out of the living room". I presented but a few instances of this. But you suggested this is just their opinion. With all due respect, their opinion carries far more weigh than does yours. > > >> > >> Furthermore, think about this... What if God appeared > >> right now and everyone in the world could see it? > >> Would that be proof? No, because people would spend > >> their time trying to explain it away naturally. Also, what > >> would happen 2,000 years from now, when people read > >> would not be God. You would. And it would actually be > >> proof that He is not all powerful, or you could not have > >> done that to Him. Thus, if you had God in a test tube, > >> that mere fact would be proof against His Deity, not proof > >> of His Deity. Thus, it is an illogical request to begin with > >> and a false call for evidence that He is Who He says He is. > > I have no idea who is trying to put god into a test tube. > Azaliah was being too literal. No one has or can. That is the problem. > There is no > evidence for your god, and that is good reason not to believe in him. > There is no direct material evidence, but there is evidence which is indirect that can be seen as inferring a creator. Some scientist have noted this _fact_ and were upset because of it. Others simply "refused to speculate". Others have searched for > >> about it and watched videos of it? Would they believe it? > >> Or would they spend their time trying to explain it away? > >> We both know it would be the latter. (: > > No we do not know that. > Based upon what I have presented to you, it's a good bet he is exactly right. > > >> > >> But hey, He could do that for every generation, right? > >> Well, then we run into that "anti-proof" situation again, > >> since if He is jumping through hoops because man > >> demands it, then He is submitting to the whim of man > >> and is not the ruling authority of the universe and all > >> that is. > > Nobody is asking god to jump through hoops. > No, but that is exactly what it would take. But I strongly suspect he doesn't take orders. > > >> > >> This is why faith is required. To have anything more, > >> is to make God less than us. > > Nonsense. > To you yes. > > But hey, enter Jesus. > >> There He is, 2,000 years ago, walking around healing > >> people and performing other miracles and stated Himself > >> to be God manifest in the flesh and what do we have? > > A story just like all the other stories found in the religions that > you reject. > > > >> People, 2000 years later, claiming He didn't exist, > >> or that the NT isn't evidence, which is a real joke > >> of a claim, considering that the NT is not one book, > >> but a collection of writings. > > One book or a collection of books makes no difference. It is not > evidence. > > > >People claim that because > >> it makes claims of spiritual issues, that it isn't evidence. > > That would be nonsense, and it is a strawman argument. > > > >> > >> Huh?!? Caesar's that we have not a single piece of > >> textual evidence for, which isn't even direct evidence, > >> but claims by people centuries later, claimed to be > >> divine and to be a god and yet, where are the atheists > >> saying that he didn't exist, or even that it isn't evidence, > >> because of the religious claims in it? > > You should ask your strawman about it. > The history of Roman Emperors are with voids. But we know there were rulers in these voids, but we have no records. They were lost to historians or destroyed or maybe just not recorded. > > >> > >> Even Titus is said to have performed healings, curing > >> blindness and a man's leg and yet, who is saying that > >> the text is not evidence of his existence? > >> > >> This is hypocrisy, plain and simple! (: > > Nobody but your strawman is making such a silly claim. > > > >> > >> > >> >>It won't happen! Nevertheless > >> >>there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. > >> >>And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: > >> >>INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff > >> >>on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE > >> >>OF GOD > >> > > >> >The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. > >> > > >> This is strong evidence. > > No, there is only your argument based on ignorance We don't know > everything about the origins of the universe, that does not mean that > there must be a god; but that is your argument. > So far you have begged off by admitting ignorance as to the origin of the universe. You have _nothing_ so until you can offer a better explanation, I refuse to go along with you. You can bask in your ignorance as long as you like. > > >Especially when you look at > >> the scenario that is promoted as truth and the lack of > >> any real answers, when the tough questions of "how" > >> come. The response is, "We don't know", which makes > >> it a matter of faith > > What is a matter of faith? The above makes no sense. > > > >>and yet, the atheist knocks the idea > >> that God created the universe. > > No, the idea that the universe is evidence for a god is knocked, and > it has been explained why. > Actually, I trying to recall your explanation as to how it has been explained away. I'm not remembering. All I recall is something on the order of: denials, denials that this or that does not prove God or you have no evidence etc.etc. But this hasn't explained anything away. > > >>Once again, this is > >> nothing more than hypocrisy that the atheist denies > >> and yet, is plainly there. (: > > Where is the hypocrisy? Do you even know what you are talking about? > > >> > >In the Prologue of "Our Cosmic Habitat", by Martin Rees, > >the opining paragraph reads: "The preeminent mystery is > >why anything exist at all. What breathes life into the > >equations of physics, and actualizes them in the real > >cosmos?" > >(Rees, 2001, pg. xi) > >He poses the questions, but offers no explanation. I > >find it curious that atheist frown upon Philosophers > >and theologicans argument that _only_ God can create > >something out of nothing, yet they offer nothing except > >propositions, guesses and suppositions without a > >shread of solid empirical evidence in support. > > In support of what? > Did you read the above paragraph? > You are the one making a specific claim about > the universe, and you are the one failing to provide evidence for that > claim. > You are addressing me, Dan Wood, by responding to another person's post.(?) Suppose I didn't read post directed to another: I usually don't. > > >> > >> >You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must > >> >have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained > >> >to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of > >> >the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let > >> >alone a deity; but you ignore it. > >> > > >> You mean, in your opinion. > > > > > >> > >What I was attempting to do with the dam analogy was to demonstrate > >in the _absence_ of a dam builder, that one can infer a builder, from > >the very existance of the material dam. But due to the answers > >From the responses I've received, I'm not sure my point was > >understood. > > I understood the analogy quite well. I agreed with you. > I'm happy you understood and agreed. But you seem to be the only one. I'm beginning the think that the secularist issue challenges to believers to "prove" their "faith", prove God, prove good comes from religion etc., but then they try desperately to frustrate anyone who takes issue with their challenge. Then almost always in the end attack the person and his character. I suppose this makes them feel superior - I don't know. > >> > >I found a vacated insect nest in a building in my back yard. It was > >a shallow cone about four inches in diameter with dozens of small > >closely packed, empty, equally sized and identically shaped cells. > >Probably built by some species of wasp which I never saw. But from > >the nest one can infer the existence of builders. > > Yes. > > > >> > >> >Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or > >> >the courage to respond to it: > >> > > >> >You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen > >> >men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience > >> >you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to > >> >conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably > >> >constructed by men. When you observe the universe, you do not have > >> >any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore > >> >the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the > >> >universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once > >> >again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists > >> >not responding to you. > >> > > >> This is not true at all. One need not have anything to > >> compare to at all. One can look at an object never before > >> seen and tell that it was made by someone. > > Yes, because you have experience with things that are made. > As you stated in another post refering to my argument about searching for signs of intelligence in outer space and the waste of $millions if your premise were valid, you wrote, ".....since we do know what intelligence is and therefore we do have a basis for recognizing it". > Okay this must apply to the Creator. If God is the creator of the universe, then certainly he must be intelligent, therefore we should be able to recognize it except for our biases . > > And yes, > >> a damn does work as an analogy. Take someone who > >> has never seen one and has lived in the jungle all of > >> his life and knows nothing of science and show it to him > >> and I guarantee you, the first question out of his mouth > >> will be, "Who built this amazing thing?". > > Since I have agreed with this, why do you keep repeating it? Are you > really so obtuse? > Remember you are responding to Azaliah: not me, Dan Wood > >> > >> Pretending that something isn't so, doesn't make your > >> problem go away and pretending that something isn't > >> evidence, because you choose to have faith in the > >> impossible and call it "reason", > > How very tedious. Please address your responses directly to your > strawman, since clearly you do not want to deal with what I or others > have been posting. > > snip of more of the same lies and distortions. > I don't know to whom you are addressing this personal assault. > Dan Wood, DDS Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 13, 2006 Posted November 13, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:rvpdl2df8tbk6cuh8b2efh37ua4orpaa0p@4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:56:00 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >news:c4i3l2h5kka3oj098p8lkpc1koosu8i4vd@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:19:44 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message > >> >news:temuk2drah24jvo6ei10jnvc1akd1mab92@4ax.com... > >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:42:06 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> snip > >> > >Sorry, for the delay, I had to go out of town for a couple of days. > > > >> > >> >The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to > >> >capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. > >> >It's an unreal, illogical expectation. > >> > >> It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something > >> immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not > >> believe in something for which no evidence is available. > >> > >> >It won't happen! Nevertheless > >> >there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better explaination. > >> >And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: > >> >INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff > >> >on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE > >> >OF GOD > >> > >> The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. > >> You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must > >> have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained > >> to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of > >> the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let > >> alone a deity; but you ignore it. > >> > >> Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or > >> the courage to respond to it: > >> > >> You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen > >> men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience > >> you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to > >> conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably > >> constructed by men. > >> > > >Not true, astronomers have for decades searched for signs of > >intelligent life in space. If your premise were valid, then $millions > >have been wasted, so far and more $10millions will yet be spent > >in the future futile searching for something which we cannot > >recognize if we find it. It will be a repeat of the > >Christopher Columbus joke. > > The above has nothing to do with what I wrote, and furthermore it > makes no sense, since we do know what intelligence is and therefore do > have a basis for recognizing it. > I agree, and since God is intelligent we should be able to infer his existance from the evidence. > > > >> > > When you observe the universe, you do not have > >> any similar experience to conclude that it was constructed, therefore > >> the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the > >> universe nothing more. Do all unbelievers a service and fail once > >> again to respond to this, and don't forget to lie again about atheists > >> not responding to you. > >> > > > >I haven't lied, > > > Yes you have. Your questions have been repeatedly answered. You have > claimed that they have not. That is just one of your lies. > You can say that, but you haven't answered my question. By _pretending_ I'm lying does not make your case. No one including _you_ has never answered my question. Only one person has honestly tried, but gave up, saying he had thought about it without finding an answer, but he said it wasn't his problem. It was the ones trying to make the case. > > >Nor have I accused atheist of not responding - just not > >answering my question. > > Since they have been answered, that is a lie. > False accusations don't make your case. Have you ever heard the axiom: "if you can't discredit the man's argument, discredit the man"? This is exactly what you're attempting to do by these false charges! The burden of proof is upon you to prove your charges against me. > > >But then I answered it for myself. There is no answer, there > >can be no answer for the simple reason God is immaterial, > > Meaning that he is indistinguishable from something that is > non-existent. > It is my contention that God can be infered from material evidence. > > >therefore, > >it is impossible to find material evidence for an immaterial being. It's > >an irrational expectation. Hence the statement: > >"NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTANCE OF GOD" is a mute point! > >And it's irrational to pose it! > > No, it is irrational to insist that there is a god, since there is no > evidence of one. If somebody makes the claim that this god exists, > asking for evidence for the claim is quite reasonable. > You're shifting the claim. I responded to a secularist who claimed "NO EVIDENCE FOR EXISTANCE OF GOD" by asking a question. WHAT would be EVIDENCE of GOD? And this was the question to which I've received no _answer_: only unwarrented, unjustified and unsupported charges of lying. > You are trying > to make your failure to provide evidence a failure of the person > asking for it. That has been explained to you, and that is the answer > you ignore. > The only thing I've ignored are idiotic responses. I initially thought you were intelligent and educated. > > >But this fact does not discount the possibility of God's existence. > > I agree. It just means that there is no objective reason to believe > in its existence. > > > >I am convinced the evidence _infers_ the existence of a creator > >of the Universe. > > The evidence which you have never presented. > I made allusions to the direction I would have gone, had you shown any genuine interest. But I saw none. > Dan > > > > > Thomas P. > > "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" > > (Kierkegaard) > Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 13, 2006 Posted November 13, 2006 Dan Wood skrev: > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > news:70rdl2pe82dbuf20psgeq4b2cg259dco8q@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:24:02 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >"Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:66p3l21b5bsrf15cn18j9ethrp239fkbel@4ax.com... > > >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:06:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, > > >> thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> shouted thusly: > > >> > > >> > > >> >>The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to > > >> >>capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. > > >> >>It's an unreal, illogical expectation. > > >> > > > >> >It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something > > >> >immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not > > >> >believe in something for which no evidence is available. > > >> > > > > >> There is evidence. > > > > So you continue to claim. > > > I misspoke, I meant there is indirect evidence - which > infers a creator. You seem to think that the word "indirect" makes a big difference. You have presented no objective evidence direct, indirect or otherwise. But so what: you have shown that you are > not honestly interested. You prefer to defend "nothing". The above is a meaningless insult and has no connection to anything that I wrote. >But > you go to great lengths to do so. If you win - you've won > nothing. Amazing! Apparently you have no shame. > > > > People looking for God in a test tube, > > >> are being dishonest. Why do I say that? Step outside of > > >> whatever your beliefs are (or lack of them) and think about > > >> it for a moment. If you could put God in a test tube, Healternative > explanations in order to "get the zebra out of the > living room". I presented but a few instances of this. But you > suggested this is just their opinion. With all due respect, their > opinion carries far more weigh than does yours. > > > > >> > > >> Furthermore, think about this... What if God appeared > > >> right now and everyone in the world could see it? > > >> Would that be proof? No, because people would spend > > >> their time trying to explain it away naturally. Also, what > > >> would happen 2,000 years from now, when people read > > >> would not be God. You would. And it would actually be > > >> proof that He is not all powerful, or you could not have > > >> done that to Him. Thus, if you had God in a test tube, > > >> that mere fact would be proof against His Deity, not proof > > >> of His Deity. Thus, it is an illogical request to begin with > > >> and a false call for evidence that He is Who He says He is. > > > > I have no idea who is trying to put god into a test tube. > > > Azaliah was being too literal. No one has or can. That is the problem. I see. So you are arguing against an idea nobody has supported. I certainly have not. That is very odd. > > > There is no > > evidence for your god, and that is good reason not to believe in him. > > > There is no direct material evidence, but there is evidence which > is indirect that can be seen as inferring a creator. Some scientist > have noted this _fact_ and were upset because of it. > Others simply "refused to speculate". Others have searched for The very obvious fact that science cannot explain everything is not evidence for a god. This has already been pointed out repeatedly, and you have ignored it repeatedly. > > > >> about it and watched videos of it? Would they believe it? > > >> Or would they spend their time trying to explain it away? > > >> We both know it would be the latter. (: > > > > No we do not know that. > > > Based upon what I have presented to you, it's a good bet he is > exactly right. Based upon what you have presented god has never shown himself to the world, therefore we do not know what would happen. > > > > >> > > >> But hey, He could do that for every generation, right? > > >> Well, then we run into that "anti-proof" situation again, > > >> since if He is jumping through hoops because man > > >> demands it, then He is submitting to the whim of man > > >> and is not the ruling authority of the universe and all > > >> that is. > > > > Nobody is asking god to jump through hoops. > > > No, but that is exactly what it would take. Evidence for his existence would not require any such thing. >But I strongly > suspect he doesn't take orders. You have no evidence for this being's mere existence, but now you are making assumptions about what he would or would not do. > > > > >> > > >> This is why faith is required. To have anything more, > > >> is to make God less than us. > > > > Nonsense. > > > To you yes. You have given no reason why objective evidence for the existence of a god would make god less than he is. It is merely an unsupported assertion about another unsupported assertion. > > > > But hey, enter Jesus. > > >> There He is, 2,000 years ago, walking around healing > > >> people and performing other miracles and stated Himself > > >> to be God manifest in the flesh and what do we have? > > > > A story just like all the other stories found in the religions that > > you reject. > > > > > > >> People, 2000 years later, claiming He didn't exist, > > >> or that the NT isn't evidence, which is a real joke > > >> of a claim, considering that the NT is not one book, > > >> but a collection of writings. > > > > One book or a collection of books makes no difference. It is not > > evidence. > > > > > > >People claim that because > > >> it makes claims of spiritual issues, that it isn't evidence. > > > > That would be nonsense, and it is a strawman argument. > > > > > > >> > > >> Huh?!? Caesar's that we have not a single piece of > > >> textual evidence for, which isn't even direct evidence, > > >> but claims by people centuries later, claimed to be > > >> divine and to be a god and yet, where are the atheists > > >> saying that he didn't exist, or even that it isn't evidence, > > >> because of the religious claims in it? > > > > You should ask your strawman about it. > > > The history of Roman Emperors are with voids. But we know > there were rulers in these voids, but we have no records. They > were lost to historians or destroyed or maybe just not recorded. Totally irrelevant to what you wrote. We have a great deal of documented evidence for the existence of Caesar. > > > > >> > > >> Even Titus is said to have performed healings, curing > > >> blindness and a man's leg and yet, who is saying that > > >> the text is not evidence of his existence? > > >> > > >> This is hypocrisy, plain and simple! (: > > > > Nobody but your strawman is making such a silly claim. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >>It won't happen! Nevertheless > > >> >>there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better > explaination. > > >> >>And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: > > >> >>INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff > > >> >>on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE > > >> >>OF GOD > > >> > > > >> >The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. > > >> > > > > >> This is strong evidence. > > > > No, there is only your argument based on ignorance We don't know > > everything about the origins of the universe, that does not mean that > > there must be a god; but that is your argument. > > > So far you have begged off by admitting ignorance as to the origin > of the universe. That is not "begging off". It is a very legitimate point. You see the universe. You do not understand how it could possibly have come into existence, so you say "god did it". In other words you are using your ignorance as evidence. >You have _nothing_ so until you can offer a better > explanation, I refuse to go along with you. You can bask in your > ignorance as long as you like. Any unsupported guess I could present would be just as good as your idea. I am not "basking in my ignorance"; I am merely pointing out that our failure to know everything does not indicate the existence of a god. You continue to avoid responding to that. No doubt you will continue to do so. > > > > >Especially when you look at > > >> the scenario that is promoted as truth and the lack of > > >> any real answers, when the tough questions of "how" > > >> come. The response is, "We don't know", which makes > > >> it a matter of faith > > > > What is a matter of faith? The above makes no sense. > > > > > > >>and yet, the atheist knocks the idea > > >> that God created the universe. > > > > No, the idea that the universe is evidence for a god is knocked, and > > it has been explained why. > > > Actually, I trying to recall your explanation as to how it has > been explained away. I'm not remembering. All I recall is > something on the order of: denials, denials that this or that > does not prove God or you have no evidence etc.etc. > But this hasn't explained anything away. Once again (this has been done many times now, and this is the last - it has become tedious to the extreme): You talked about a man seeing a dam. You said that the man knew the difference between natural objects and constructed objects (got it so far?), and was therefore able to conclude that the dam was constructed by somebody. I agree with you; his conclusion was quite logical. This analogy does not work as evidence for a god. It does not because the universe is natural. The observer of the dam could compare the dam with the natural world; that is what he based his conclusion on. What does the observer of the universe use as a comparison? Surprise me this time and actually respond to what I wrote. snip Quote
Guest calee@optonline.net Posted November 13, 2006 Posted November 13, 2006 On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:23:24 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >news:rvpdl2df8tbk6cuh8b2efh37ua4orpaa0p@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:56:00 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >news:c4i3l2h5kka3oj098p8lkpc1koosu8i4vd@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:19:44 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:temuk2drah24jvo6ei10jnvc1akd1mab92@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:42:06 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> snip >> >> >> >Sorry, for the delay, I had to go out of town for a couple of days. >> > >> >> >> >> >The only way some unbelievers will ever change their minds is to >> >> >capture God dissect him and analyze him under a microscope. >> >> >It's an unreal, illogical expectation. >> >> >> >> It would be illogical to expect objective evidence for something >> >> immaterial; I agree with you. It is not illogical, however, to not >> >> believe in something for which no evidence is available. >> >> >> >> >It won't happen! Nevertheless >> >> >there is indirect evidence for which there is _no_ better >explaination. >> >> >And I offered a brief snopsis of this in another post entitled: >> >> >INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I will admit it was a takeoff >> >> >on the origional post. "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE >> >> >OF GOD >> >> >> >> The only "evidence" you have offered is the existence of the universe. >> >> You used the analogy of discovering a dam and concluding that it must >> >> have been constructed by men. It has by now been repeatedly explained >> >> to you why the analogy does not work at all, and why the existence of >> >> the universe does not provide evidence for any creator at all let >> >> alone a deity; but you ignore it. >> >> >> >> Here it is again; let's see if you have the courtesy, the honesty or >> >> the courage to respond to it: >> >> >> >> You have experience (evidence) with natural objects, and you have seen >> >> men construct artificial objects (evidence). Based on that experience >> >> you are able to distinguish between natural and artificial and to >> >> conclude that an artificial object you observe was probably >> >> constructed by men. >> >> >> >> >Not true, astronomers have for decades searched for signs of >> >intelligent life in space. If your premise were valid, then $millions >> >have been wasted, so far and more $10millions will yet be spent >> >in the future futile searching for something which we cannot >> >recognize if we find it. It will be a repeat of the >> >Christopher Columbus joke. >> >> The above has nothing to do with what I wrote, and furthermore it >> makes no sense, since we do know what intelligence is and therefore do >> have a basis for recognizing it. >> >I agree, and since God is intelligent we should be able to infer Once again the intellectually dishonest Dan begs the very question he refuses to answer. >his existance from the evidence. Either provide this evidence WITHOUT PRESUMING GOD in order to conclude it, or admit you are wasting everybody's time. 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.