Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17:47 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: >> In most cases, the "GOD" is just an imaginary being >> existing in the head of a believer, whose ideas are based on >> someone else's description of the "GOD" is HIS or HER head. >> >> But there are tangible things such as a mountain or a vulcano or a >> sculpture some people believe to be gods. And those, of course, do >> exist. >> >> There is also "Spinoza's God", so called and believe in by Albert >> Einstein, and of course THAT one actually DOES exist, >> the only "omnipresent" and "eternal" existence there is. >> I.e. the MACROCOSMOS, NATURE, "ALL THAT EXISTS". -- L. > >There is only one God, and He is known by many names. Call Him >Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great Spirit. >It doesn't matter. By whatever name, we are speaking of only The >One True God. That's, as Lib says, "just an imaginary being existing in the head of a believer" - you, in this case. >Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham by realization. >He differs only by attempted description. "He" differs, in that Spinoza was referring to the universe, not to a being. Why call the universe "God" - it already has a perfectly good letter string to refer to it by. Of course, it didn't create itself, it doesn't care about your sex life and it takes almost no note of humankind. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." -Isaac Asimov (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:19:48 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a >>> simple realization. >> Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence. >> "Realization" is opinion, not evidence. >A realization is not an opinion. A realization is an experience. Since it only occurs in your mind, it's an opinion; it's not objective. You can believe that you experienced anything you want to believe you experienced but, outside your mind, no one cares. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for failing to produce the evidence." - Wayne M. Delia+ (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Tuco Ramirez Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 josh wrote: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of > thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? > Just daydreaming? He was planning what to do with people who ask silly questions. > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he > sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum > somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and > memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If > it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a > time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. How did you determine this? > And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment How did you reach this conclussion? >, so God could not have created the universe. > > Please argue. Quote
Guest Icarus Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 josh wrote: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to > credit God with the creation and the ongoing supervision of > the world, but are not so hasty to explain the origin of God > and the source of the abilities attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere > in which he could exist, and that was the universe. If God > has amazing powers of thought and action, what was he doing > with those powers before he used them? Just daydreaming? > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For > example, did he sit working out the complexity of the human > body in some sort of vacuum somewhere? He could not do that > without some sort of thinking mechanism and memory, which > suggests a previous round of creation. > > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does > that mean? If it is a place, then it must have been created. > And therefore there was a time when it had not been created, > so God could not then have lived there. So maybe God and > heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not > exist before there was a universe for him to exist in. And > still the same problem arises: the universe exists in time, > so God and the universe must have come into being at the same > moment, so God could not have created the universe. I agree. It's clearly a nonsense to suggest that an intelligent entity could exist before there was a universe for it to exist in. Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote: > "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: > >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Someone wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective >>>> scientific methods of inquiry. >>> >>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective >>> existence requires objective evidence. >> >> I don't know what you are talking about. >> >> The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the >> realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense. > > Words have senses; ontological statuses (if there is more than one) > have modes. At least, I suggest this refinement. > > I'll grant, for the sake of argument, that there is one and only one > mode of existence. > > The latter part of your assertion entails that to be a thing, and > therefore, classifiable as being in the group that makes up > "everything", is to exist. Therefore, to not exist, would be to not be > a thing. The question then becomes, is a thing being referred to when > one utters "God" in print or orally. > > Another formulation of your assertion would be "...everything that > exists, exists on one, and only one sense [mode]". This would assert > that some "things" are things in a sense of that word that does not > entail their existence. The question in this case would become, is the > thing referred to by the word "God" existent? > > In any event, I do not believe that the idea that everything exists > in one and only one sense (mode) leads to either the attainment that > (1) there is a thing referred to by uttering "God, or (2) the thing > referred to by the word "God" exists. > -- Jim07D6 The point you are making has also been made in many comedy skits where an actor pretending to be very distraught in the interaction taking place with another actor on the stage with him suddenly throws up his arms in a gesture of despair and exclaims "Oh, God!" Then a very deep and resounding voice coming from above the stage says "Yes, you called?" Most believers and probably all atheists in the audience who had never seen that kind of comedy routine before would laugh. Those who had seen that one many times before would boo. Of course the actors and the audience know that the voice is just the voice of the make-believe God, not the voice of the real one. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:19:48 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >>>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a >>>> simple realization. > >>> Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence. >>> "Realization" is opinion, not evidence. > >> A realization is not an opinion. A realization is an experience. > > Since it only occurs in your mind, it's an opinion; it's not > objective. You can believe that you experienced anything you want to > believe you experienced but, outside your mind, no one cares. Many people report having the same experience and they want to share it with others. Non-realization is a delusion. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17:47 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: <snip> > "He" differs, in that Spinoza was referring to the universe, not to a > being. Why call the universe "God" - it already has a perfectly good > letter string to refer to it by. Of course, it didn't create itself, > it doesn't care about your sex life and it takes almost no note of > humankind. Look, boys and girls, Al Klein is now saying that the universe didn't create itself! Then he went on to describe some other things that the universe doesn't do, and I agree with him about all that too. There are many things that the universe does, but, as Al says, "Of course, it didn't create itself" Al Klein came out of his denial and he is now acknowledging himself as a member of the Believers' Club. Welcome aboard, Al! Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: > > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > >>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Someone wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective > >>>> scientific methods of inquiry. > >>> > >>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective > >>> existence requires objective evidence. > >> > >> I don't know what you are talking about. > >> > >> The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the > >> realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense. > > > > ===>Everything that exists has always existed and always will exist, > > in some form, since the COSMOS is a PROCESS of constant formation and > > transformation of ITSELF and all of its component parts. > > > > There is no extra-cosmic super-natural entity, since the COSMOS > > is all there is, ever was, or ever will be (credit: Carl Sagan). -- L. > > Thanks for posting that. I have heard it before in Philosophy 101. > And I saw the video too, and would like to see it again. To Carl > Sagan the Cosmos is a natural entity. To many others the Cosmos is a > super-natural entity. Whether one thinks of the Cosmos as a natural > or as a super-natural entity is irrelevant if you can understand that > the Cosmos is just one of many thousands of names for the Almighty. > > To acknowledge that "everything that exists and has always existed > and always will exist" is to acknowledge that God exists. > > For believers, reading Carl Sagan can be just as enlightening as > reading something like this: You just made Carl Sagan spin in his grave. Carl Sagan was an ATHEIST. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: > > In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof is a > proof that may be derived from the results of > investigating something that may be investigated within the > boundaries of science and by using the scientific method and testable > hypotheses, etc. > > Because science does not investigate God, it seems really > ignorant for one to demand of a believer that he post an > objective proof of God. It is not science which refuses to investigate God. It is the believers in God who objects to any scientific evidence on the subject, thus placing God outside of the area of scientific investigation. --Wax Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote > > Many people report having the same experience and they want to share it > with others. Non-realization is a delusion. Many people report having been abducted by alien spacecraft and probed anally. They want to share it with others. --Wax Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On 12/17/06 7:08 PM, in article Pine.NEB.4.62.0612172137510.27734@sdf.lonestar.org, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17:47 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: > > <snip> > >> "He" differs, in that Spinoza was referring to the universe, not to a >> being. Why call the universe "God" - it already has a perfectly good >> letter string to refer to it by. Of course, it didn't create itself, >> it doesn't care about your sex life and it takes almost no note of >> humankind. > > Look, boys and girls, Al Klein is now saying that the universe > didn't create itself! > > Then he went on to describe some other things that the universe > doesn't do, and I agree with him about all that too. There are > many things that the universe does, but, as Al says, "Of course, > it didn't create itself" > > Al Klein came out of his denial and he is now acknowledging himself > as a member of the Believers' Club. > > Welcome aboard, Al! > > Sam Heywood > -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an appropriate thread): Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random biological event. (1) The Universe, being infinite, contains an infinite number of possibilities. Because of the infinite number of possibilities, the prerequisites for life exists on an infinite number of planets. So far, so good, right? (2) Since there are an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the Universe, there must be an infinite number of planets that contain intelligent life. (3) Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me- (or beings so close to be like -me- that the difference is indiscernible) in the Universe. (4) Furthermore, there must be an infinite number of -me- that have produced the capacity to instantaneously transport themselves anywhere within space/time. (5) There must be an infinite number of -me- that have instantaneous transport capability that have decided to transport themselves to my space/time in order to reveal to me the Mysteries of the Universe . (6) Since no instances of -me- have materialized in front me to have that discussion, one of my initial postulates must be incorrect. Conclusion: Either the Universe is NOT infinite or Life is not a random biological event. Hey, isn't that a gas! Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote > > There is only one God, and He is known by many names. > Call Him Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great Spirit. > It doesn't matter. By whatever name, > we are speaking of only The One True God. > > Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham > by realization. He differs only by attempted description. There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you three examples right now: First, there is what Libertarius referred to as Spinoza's God. Basically Spinoza's God is identical with nature and cannot be separated from it. Second is the Christian God which is separate from his creation and exists outside of time and in a separate world. Third is the biblical God. That God was made in the image of man and exhibits many of man's characteristics, such as anger, greed, and conceit. He sits on a throne with angels constantly singing "Holy, Holy, Holy." Isaiah 6:1-3 Revelations 4:6-8 --Wax. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote > > Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious > with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an > appropriate thread): > > Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random > biological event. > > (1) The Universe, being infinite, contains an infinite number of > possibilities. Because of the infinite number of possibilities, the > prerequisites for life exists on an infinite number of planets. > > So far, so good, right? > > (2) Since there are an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the > Universe, there must be an infinite number of planets that contain > intelligent life. > > (3) Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the > Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me- (or beings > so close to be like -me- that the difference is indiscernible) in the > Universe. > > (4) Furthermore, there must be an infinite number of -me- that have > produced the capacity to instantaneously transport themselves anywhere > within space/time. > > (5) There must be an infinite number of -me- that have instantaneous > transport capability that have decided to transport themselves to my > space/time in order to reveal to me the Mysteries of the Universe . > > (6) Since no instances of -me- have materialized in front me to have > that > discussion, one of my initial postulates must be incorrect. > > Conclusion: Either the Universe is NOT infinite or Life is not a random > biological event. > > > Hey, isn't that a gas! > It only proves that you do not understand infinity. For example, at number (3) you state, "Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me-." That is incorrect. There could be an infinite number of intelligent beings in the Universe without there being even one of you. There could be an infinite number of intelligent beings in the universe without there being any two which are alike. Infinity is a funny thing. If you divide it in half, it does not decrease in size. If you double it, it is still the same size as it was before, yet some infinities are be larger than other infinities. The number of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) is infinite. The number of even numbers (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.) is also infinite. In fact, both sets of infinities are the same size. But the number of points on a line is a larger infinity than the number of natural numbers. You will have to study up on infinity to understand why. --Wax Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: >>> >>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Someone wrote: <snip> >> Correct. If you have come to know God as The Invisible Pink Unicorn >> then you should share your religious experience with others, just like >> John Lennon shared with millions of others his experience of knowing >> God as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. > > Huh? Lennon was an atheist. And if you look at the initials of the > title of the song, they form the word "LSD." Lennon was a seeker after God and spirituality and he was into Eastern religion, especially some of the teachings of the Hindus. The Beatles visited the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi at his ashram in India. They were involved for a while with his Transcental Meditation movement. Because of the affinity that the Beatles felt for Hinduism they started a big short-lived fad and fashion of wearing Nehru-style jackets. According to snopes there is no truth in the popular urban legend that Lennon got the idea of the title of his song from the name of the hallucinogenic drug LSD. "http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/lucysky.htm" Urban Legends Reference Pages: Music (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds) > Which is what the song is > about. It is about drugs. You know, an acid trip. It is laughable > that you would claim that, out of all the songs out there, as a > tribute to your god. The Beatles were admitted users of LSD and it certainly does appear that many of their songs might have been inspired by drug-induced hallucinations. In the medical literature on LSD you can read that many people taking this drug frequently report seeing visions of a beneficent religious nature or having beautiful religious thoughts and ideas. The problem with recommending to anyone the taking of this drug is that there are many reports of people taking it who have experienced very bad trips and freaking out and going insane. Just because one has a good trip the first time doesn't mean he will have a good one the next time. It seems to me that you have very little appreciation for religious poetry if you cannot envision or imagine the song as a tribute to God. >> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Lucy-in-the-Sky-with-Diamonds-lyrics-The-Beatles/268F467B6ECC8C7148256BC20013FDB3 >> THE BEATLES - LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS LYRICS <snip> > But only to the person postulating it, That postulate is not > automatically a postulate for anyone else. So, I don't accept your > proposal as a postulate. You are attempting one of the single most lame > and dishonest proofs of God I've ever come across. God's existence is a > postulate therefore God exists. Really? You ought to be embarrassed. A postulate isn't an argument nor is it a proof. A postulate is just an assertion accepted as true. >>> It may be a >>> postulate within the framework of Christianity, but it ain't no >>> postulate outside of it. >> >> It is a basic assumption accepted as true by all world religions that >> I am aware of. > > 1. How come different religions postulate different Gods? > 2. Just because lots of people think something doesn't mean it's true. With the exception of those very few religions which by their own claims worship Satan, different religions do not postulate different Gods. And of course I agree that just because lots of people think something doesn't make it true. <snip> Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > You just made Carl Sagan spin in his grave. Carl Sagan was an ATHEIST. According to himself and according to you, but not according to me. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > > "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: > >> >> In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof is a >> proof that may be derived from the results of >> investigating something that may be investigated within the >> boundaries of science and by using the scientific method and testable >> hypotheses, etc. >> Because science does not investigate God, it seems really >> ignorant for one to demand of a believer that he post an >> objective proof of God. > It is not science which refuses to investigate God. It is the > believers in God who objects to any scientific evidence on the > subject, thus placing God outside of the area of scientific > investigation. > > --Wax I have never heard of any scientific evidence of God. It is science itself that places God outside the area of scientific investigation. Many believers want science to investigate God, but they fail to understand why it is that science cannot investigate God. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Ted King wrote: > In article <Pine.NEB.4.62.0612151230560.5974@sdf.lonestar.org>, > "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > > > > > > I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. And Euclid > > does not need to provide any proof that the shortest distance between > > two points is a straight line. One does not need to prove what is > > obvious. > > > > This subthread started with this exchange: > > > > > > Your > > > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > > > excuse. > > > Less of an excuse for what? > > For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by > God. > > [unquote] > > To which Al Klein responded with, "It's only "obvious" if you've already > decided that it's true. That's called assuming your conclusion." > > To which you responded with: > > > > No, it is called postulating the major premise. > > To postulate means to state a postulate. > > A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true > without proof. > > "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a > basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. > > [unquote] > > I will grant you that one could posit the statement, "We live in a world > created by God," as a postulate - an assumption that is accepted as true > within a certain logical domain. And one could posit as a postulate > within a certain logical domain that this statement is obviously true. > As postulates within those logical domains they would be accepted as > true without proof. > > But look closely at the context at the beginning of this subthread. > Chris said, "Your research just might find God or at least give people > less and less of an excuse" (...for blatantly missing the obvious, that > we live a world created by God.) The phrase "your research just might > find God..." does not imply Chris was presenting a postulate - something > to just be accepted as true ; on the contrary, the clear implication is > that by looking at enough material with an open mind one will be come to > see that there is such good reason to think to God created the world > that it will seen as obviously true. This has every appearance of being > presented as a claim that carries a burden of proof rather than being > presented as a postulate. I don't think that the burden of proof lies soley with objective evidence. Since science has concluded that the universe did have a beginning, particularly that time and space is also part of this beginning, this just supports the claim; but not proof. Paul, the author of the book of Romans, spent a considerable amount of time in a letter writing to the church of Rome making an argument that all mankind is without an excuse. Consider what he wrote: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." I think it is no accident that almost every culture has some concept of a deity. All you have to do is simply look up and see the awesomeness of the universe. So, when you look up and look at the vastness of the universe, your "instinct" is not -- created by chance, rather it is created by something divine. Not only created by something divine, but it also speaks of God's attributes, namely that this something divine created the universe and the world we live in with eternal power... Science may show some interesting things about how God has setup the universe, but I think it seems very inconclusive of how the universe happened. But this is not the only reason you are without excuse though... Paul goes on to argue in the very next sentence and says: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." So, the argument here is that if your first instinct is God, yet you deny his existence, worship idols, claim to be wise (not you!), then your hearts will be darkened and the rest of the chapter goes on to explain what it means for your hearts to become plunged into darkness (see Romans 1:24-32). You might be able to identify with some of these things listed in these verses. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32;&version=47; He further argues for even less excuse: "For when Gentiles [all non Jews], who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16) Paul states the the "work of the law is written on their hearts". No one has to tell us murder, stealing, hurting another person is wrong; we know instinctively. This moral law is written on our hearts. We feel shame like no other creature on this planet. Think about the kind of things you've felt shame for, disrespecting yor parents, lieing, cheating, etc.. This separates us from any other creature. None of these things can be proved through objective evidence though. Just as you can't prove the concept of love; yet everyone believes there is such a thing as love... It is a sense, feeling, emotion that there is no objective evidence for. Well, this law that is written on our hearts is very similar; it tells us what is right and wrong, it shows us shame, and it should make us ask why we are different than every other creature. Is it because we are created in the image of a divine being who created the world? That should be our response, not an act of random chance. You may not like the idea that God would plunge a person into darkness because of our sin against Him, but that is a fact and best explains the world we see today... We are told we live in a cursed world. His divine nature is made up of many different things: love, wrath, righteousnes, kindness, mercy... You can't take one attribute of God only. Unfortunately, it seems like the laws of eternity declare that nothing sinful can pass through this universe into God's presence. So you have to make a choice... You can choose to be wise ignoring the obvioius or you can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ who can cover this sin. This can be done simply by putting your faith in Christ. I hope this helps in my meaning of the phrase "without excuse." Chris > > Your statement that is at the top of this post carries the implication > that God's existence does not require "proof" because it is obvious. If > all you intend by that is to say that you are positing a logical domain > where it is a postulate that it is obvious that God exists, then that is > all fine and dandy (accept I have no interest in considering it). But if > you mean to imply that even beyond the confines of that logical domain > it is in fact the actual state of affairs that it is obvious that God > exists, then I would say you are positing a claim that carries a burden > of proof. > > Ted Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > > "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote >> >> There is only one God, and He is known by many names. >> Call Him Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great Spirit. >> It doesn't matter. By whatever name, >> we are speaking of only The One True God. >> >> Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham >> by realization. He differs only by attempted description. > > There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you > three examples right now: <snip> You don't have to give me any examples of incompatible conceptions. I already know that there are incompatible conceptions, just like in the ancient Hindu parable about the three blind men who had come across an elephant. Each blind man tried to figure out what it is. One of them felt the elephants tail and another felt the elephant's tail and another felt the elephant's ear. They each had different conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the same thing. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:18:12 GMT, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: - Refer: <owphh.517100$QZ1.193444@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> > >"Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote >> >> Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious >> with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an >> appropriate thread): >> >> Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random >> biological event. >> >> (1) The Universe, being infinite, contains an infinite number of >> possibilities. Because of the infinite number of possibilities, the >> prerequisites for life exists on an infinite number of planets. >> >> So far, so good, right? >> >> (2) Since there are an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the >> Universe, there must be an infinite number of planets that contain >> intelligent life. >> >> (3) Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the >> Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me- (or beings >> so close to be like -me- that the difference is indiscernible) in the >> Universe. >> >> (4) Furthermore, there must be an infinite number of -me- that have >> produced the capacity to instantaneously transport themselves anywhere >> within space/time. >> >> (5) There must be an infinite number of -me- that have instantaneous >> transport capability that have decided to transport themselves to my >> space/time in order to reveal to me the Mysteries of the Universe . >> >> (6) Since no instances of -me- have materialized in front me to have >> that >> discussion, one of my initial postulates must be incorrect. >> >> Conclusion: Either the Universe is NOT infinite or Life is not a random >> biological event. >> >> >> Hey, isn't that a gas! >> > >It only proves that you do not understand infinity. > >For example, at number (3) you state, "Since there are an infinite number of >intelligent beings in the Universe, there must be an infinite number of >instances of -me-." That is incorrect. There could be an infinite number >of intelligent beings in the Universe without there being even one of you. >There could be an infinite number of intelligent beings in the universe >without there being any two which are alike. > >Infinity is a funny thing. If you divide it in half, it does not decrease >in size. If you double it, it is still the same size as it was before, yet >some infinities are be larger than other infinities. > >The number of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) is infinite. The number >of even numbers (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.) is also infinite. In fact, both sets >of infinities are the same size. But the number of points on a line is a >larger infinity than the number of natural numbers. You will have to study >up on infinity to understand why. > >--Wax He will have to learn to "think" first. I fear that your noble attempts to educate this fucking cretin "Someone" will be in vain. -- Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On 12/17/06 9:18 PM, in article owphh.517100$QZ1.193444@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > > "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote >> >> Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious >> with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an >> appropriate thread): >> >> Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random >> biological event. >> >> (1) The Universe, being infinite, contains an infinite number of >> possibilities. Because of the infinite number of possibilities, the >> prerequisites for life exists on an infinite number of planets. >> >> So far, so good, right? >> >> (2) Since there are an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the >> Universe, there must be an infinite number of planets that contain >> intelligent life. >> >> (3) Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the >> Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me- (or beings >> so close to be like -me- that the difference is indiscernible) in the >> Universe. >> >> (4) Furthermore, there must be an infinite number of -me- that have >> produced the capacity to instantaneously transport themselves anywhere >> within space/time. >> >> (5) There must be an infinite number of -me- that have instantaneous >> transport capability that have decided to transport themselves to my >> space/time in order to reveal to me the Mysteries of the Universe . >> >> (6) Since no instances of -me- have materialized in front me to have >> that >> discussion, one of my initial postulates must be incorrect. >> >> Conclusion: Either the Universe is NOT infinite or Life is not a random >> biological event. >> >> >> Hey, isn't that a gas! >> > > It only proves that you do not understand infinity. > > For example, at number (3) you state, "Since there are an infinite number of > intelligent beings in the Universe, there must be an infinite number of > instances of -me-." That is incorrect. There could be an infinite number > of intelligent beings in the Universe without there being even one of you. > There could be an infinite number of intelligent beings in the universe > without there being any two which are alike. But we're talking probability in an infinite set of results here, right? So, give it a number, what is the probability that another creature biologically the same as me (or "close enough that the difference is indiscernible") exists? If you can put a finite number on that probability, then in an infinite result set, it must exist. Of course you can be right and it may be impossible for there to be a sequence of events that can yield another like -me-... Or that the consciousness I call -me- is unique in the Universe. Actually, the fallacy I caught (when discussing this with my colleague) is that it may be physically impossible to do instantaneous transportation (although Hawking in BHOT suggested that it might be possible if you have enough energy). It never occurred to me that -I- could be unique, being the result of a completely biological process. > > Infinity is a funny thing. If you divide it in half, it does not decrease > in size. If you double it, it is still the same size as it was before, yet > some infinities are be larger than other infinities. > > The number of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) is infinite. The number > of even numbers (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.) is also infinite. In fact, both sets > of infinities are the same size. But the number of points on a line is a > larger infinity than the number of natural numbers. You will have to study > up on infinity to understand why. > > --Wax > > Actually, you're right of course. The entire exercise falters if you consider the cardinality of infinite sets--the Universe as I describe assumes that the Universe's possibilities belong to the cardinal set under the Zermelo-Fraenkel continuum hypothesis (ZFC) (which makes it about equal to Aleph-one) although it is impossible to prove it; of course that assumption could be wrong and the Universe may not be in the cardinality of Real Numbers, but something "less." You're also right because I can't seem to get my mind around the idea that the possibilities in our infinite Universe is, for example, Aleph null. Speaking of which (to resurrect another argument in this selfsame thread), many mathematicians (Godel, Cantor, etc.) had tried to prove the continuum hypothesis--and failed. Quote
Guest Ted King Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 In article <1166422956.968425.321630@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > Ted King wrote: > > In article <Pine.NEB.4.62.0612151230560.5974@sdf.lonestar.org>, > > "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. And Euclid > > > does not need to provide any proof that the shortest distance between > > > two points is a straight line. One does not need to prove what is > > > obvious. > > > > > > > This subthread started with this exchange: > > > > > > > > > > Your > > > > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > > > > excuse. > > > > > Less of an excuse for what? > > > > For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by > > God. > > > > [unquote] > > > > To which Al Klein responded with, "It's only "obvious" if you've already > > decided that it's true. That's called assuming your conclusion." > > > > To which you responded with: > > > > > > > > No, it is called postulating the major premise. > > > > To postulate means to state a postulate. > > > > A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true > > without proof. > > > > "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a > > basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. > > > > [unquote] > > > > I will grant you that one could posit the statement, "We live in a world > > created by God," as a postulate - an assumption that is accepted as true > > within a certain logical domain. And one could posit as a postulate > > within a certain logical domain that this statement is obviously true. > > As postulates within those logical domains they would be accepted as > > true without proof. > > > > But look closely at the context at the beginning of this subthread. > > Chris said, "Your research just might find God or at least give people > > less and less of an excuse" (...for blatantly missing the obvious, that > > we live a world created by God.) The phrase "your research just might > > find God..." does not imply Chris was presenting a postulate - something > > to just be accepted as true ; on the contrary, the clear implication is > > that by looking at enough material with an open mind one will be come to > > see that there is such good reason to think to God created the world > > that it will seen as obviously true. This has every appearance of being > > presented as a claim that carries a burden of proof rather than being > > presented as a postulate. > > > I don't think that the burden of proof lies soley with objective > evidence. Since science has concluded that the universe did have a > beginning, particularly that time and space is also part of this > beginning, this just supports the claim; but not proof. > > Paul, the author of the book of Romans, spent a considerable amount of > time in a letter writing to the church of Rome making an argument that > all mankind is without an excuse. Consider what he wrote: > > "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness > and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the > truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God > has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal > power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the > creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are > without excuse." > > I think it is no accident that almost every culture has some concept of > a deity. All you have to do is simply look up and see the awesomeness > of the universe. So, when you look up and look at the vastness of the > universe, your "instinct" is not -- created by chance, rather it is > created by something divine. Not only created by something divine, but > it also speaks of God's attributes, namely that this something divine > created the universe and the world we live in with eternal power... > > Science may show some interesting things about how God has setup the > universe, but I think it seems very inconclusive of how the universe > happened. > > But this is not the only reason you are without excuse though... Paul > goes on to argue in the very next sentence and says: > > "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give > thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their > foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, > and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling > mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." > > So, the argument here is that if your first instinct is God, yet you > deny his existence, worship idols, claim to be wise (not you!), then > your hearts will be darkened and the rest of the chapter goes on to > explain what it means for your hearts to become plunged into darkness > (see Romans 1:24-32). You might be able to identify with some of these > things listed in these verses. > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32;&version=47; > > He further argues for even less excuse: > > "For when Gentiles [all non Jews], who do not have the law, by nature > do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though > they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is > written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and > their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, > according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. > (Romans 2:14-16) > > Paul states the the "work of the law is written on their hearts". No > one has to tell us murder, stealing, hurting another person is wrong; > we know instinctively. This moral law is written on our hearts. We > feel shame like no other creature on this planet. Think about the kind > of things you've felt shame for, disrespecting yor parents, lieing, > cheating, etc.. This separates us from any other creature. > > None of these things can be proved through objective evidence though. > Just as you can't prove the concept of love; yet everyone believes > there is such a thing as love... It is a sense, feeling, emotion that > there is no objective evidence for. Well, this law that is written on > our hearts is very similar; it tells us what is right and wrong, it > shows us shame, and it should make us ask why we are different than > every other creature. Is it because we are created in the image of a > divine being who created the world? That should be our response, not > an act of random chance. > > You may not like the idea that God would plunge a person into darkness > because of our sin against Him, but that is a fact and best explains > the world we see today... We are told we live in a cursed world. His > divine nature is made up of many different things: love, wrath, > righteousnes, kindness, mercy... You can't take one attribute of God > only. Unfortunately, it seems like the laws of eternity declare that > nothing sinful can pass through this universe into God's presence. So > you have to make a choice... You can choose to be wise ignoring the > obvioius or you can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ who can > cover this sin. This can be done simply by putting your faith in > Christ. > > I hope this helps in my meaning of the phrase "without excuse." > > Chris > > I was making the point that your statement that started this subthread was not a postulate - as Samuel W. Heywood claimed. Nothing you say above directly addresses that issue. As to the substance of your post - I think you are wrong about what science "concludes" with respect to the theory of the big bang. All that science can "tell" us to date is what happened after the "bang" started - it has nothing to say, to date, about what happened before that. It is entirely consistent with what we know to hypothesize that "our" bang could have been part of an infinite series of bangs that "sprout" new bangs. ["The Fabric of the Cosmos", Brian Greene, pp. 318 - 321] As to the rest of your "argument" for it being obvious that we live in a world created by God, there are plausible scientific explanations, that do not include us being created by a God, for why we have what we call morality, love and other emotions. The point is not to "prove" morality and emotions but to account for them, and they can be reasonably accounted for without resort to positing a Creator God. The "without excuse" notion is just part of a evangelical gambit to rationalize evangelism. It has no force unless one already believes. I have no problem with you choosing to have the beliefs you have as long as you don't hassle me unduly for choosing to have contrary beliefs (or have lack of some beliefs). I actually do consider Jesus to have been a philosopher who had some quite profound things to say (and was wildly wrong about a great many other things), so I can respect a great deal of what peaceful Christians believe. Peace be with you, brother. Ted Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:39:20 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote: >> If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this >> fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs. >In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof >is a proof that may be derived from the results of investigating >something that may be investigated within the boundaries of science >and by using the scientific method and testable hypotheses, etc. > >Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for >one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God. Science doesn't investigate God because science hasn't seen anything TO investigate. Science needs an objective observation to start with, and there hasn't yet been ANY objective observation of ANY god EVER. Post an objective observation of a god and science will investigate it. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:57:48 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote: > >> The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and >> never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed. > >The fact that there is no objective evidence of God is not a problem >because God has not been objectively investigated. Investigation only starts once an objective observation has been made. Science doesn't investigate assertions. Post an objective observation of your god and science will investigate it. But, until you can, don't make assertions that your god objectively exists. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." -A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:33:21 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> Since it only occurs in your mind, it's an opinion; it's not >> objective. You can believe that you experienced anything you want to >> believe you experienced but, outside your mind, no one cares. >Many people report having the same experience and they want >to share it with others. So share it with those who want to share it with you. Atheists don't care about your god-experiences since the only way they affect us is if YOU affect us. >Non-realization is a delusion. The fact that we don't share your experience is a delusion? -- rukbat at optonline dot net We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. - H. L. Mencken (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:08:46 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17:47 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: ><snip> >> "He" differs, in that Spinoza was referring to the universe, not to a >> being. Why call the universe "God" - it already has a perfectly good >> letter string to refer to it by. Of course, it didn't create itself, >> it doesn't care about your sex life and it takes almost no note of >> humankind. >Look, boys and girls, Al Klein is now saying that the universe >didn't create itself! No one ever claimed that it did. Cretinists (those who insist on remaining stupid) claim that atheism claims that it does, but who takes note of the opinion of a cretin? -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Christmas, with its spirit of giving, offers us all a wonderful opportunity each year to reflect on what we all most sincerely and deeply believe in - I refer, of course, to money ." - Tom Lehrer (random sig, produced by SigChanger) 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.