IrishEyes Posted April 27, 2004 Report Posted April 27, 2004 No, a Snickers bar would have a very different signature. Besides the chocolate smear on the probes! Woohoo!!! How could I ever forget the evidence of the chocolate smear on the probes? What, do you eat with, your elbows? Or are the probes connected to fingers and lips? Besides, I don't know about YOU, but *I* NEVER leave a single drop of chocolate. Why waste it??? Talk about a crime! That should be against the 10Cs!!
Freethinker Posted April 27, 2004 Report Posted April 27, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyes Now if in fact thee was a universal flood story which had consistant timing and did not conflict with other historical facts, then we might have a PROOF. Ok, my problem with this reasoning is that it goes against reality. I know, that doedn't make much sense, right? YOu are correct, it doesn't make sense. Just as it does NOT go against reality. It is HISTORIC FACT that the various myths are from DIFFERENT SOCIETIES that lived at DIFFERENT TIMES and in DIFFERENT PLACES! Different cultures have different timelines for the Flood. Some have no flood story. Does that prove that it didn't happen? Yes. Why are you confused? My 'proof' is studying different scientific opinions and research, and seeing how they fit with other theories. there ARE scientists that believe in the Flood, and they aren't all associated with Christian research groups. OK, some mught be Jewish? Many are, but not every single one of them. One of the following sites is by a Creationist, but it has scientific information included. The IRC is a completely disreputable, non-scientific example of intentional lies and ignorance. They have no credibility what so ever. Plain and simple. There lies have been refuted over and over and they INTENTIONALLY refuse to acknowedge them. Do I agree with every thing that every Christian scientist says? NO WAY. But I refuse to dismiss them as a group based on their religious beliefs. Nor would I. I dismiss them on the basis of lack of scientific rigor. http://custance.org/Library/Volume9/Part_I/Appendices.html You said one was Christian suggesting and the other wasn't? Obviously anything from the IRC is Creationist drivel of the worst kind! The other is a blantant Christian and lacks ANY valid credentials in cosmological science. He invented a face mask! Big deal! From his site "Scientific Achievements:developed and designed respirator mask, mask-sizing meter, anthropometric facial contour measuring device. and the Custance Sudorimeter for accurate measurement of levels of heat stress." And this qualifies him to challenge ALL of the LEADING COSMOLOGICAL PHYSICISTS how? And this was the best you could come up with! Yes you can find any number of sources that claim the flood happened. Not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has ANY credible authority to do so.
Freethinker Posted April 27, 2004 Report Posted April 27, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyesWoohoo!!! How could I ever forget the evidence of the chocolate smear on the probes? What, do you eat with, your elbows? Or are the probes connected to fingers and lips? Besides, I don't know about YOU, but *I* NEVER leave a single drop of chocolate. Why waste it??? Talk about a crime! That should be against the 10Cs!! I'll tell you where I often wind up with chocolate other than my fingers (and it's NOT my elbows). Your welcome to lick it all off!
IrishEyes Posted April 27, 2004 Report Posted April 27, 2004 Whoa! Boy this explains a lot! Quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Move over Einstein! Irisheyes is going to rewrite General Relativity! I am humble in your presence. I would be pleased to set up a conference call between you and Steven Hawkings so you can set him straight on this! What would I do without you keeping me in line? Thanks for bringing me back to earth, must have been too much blood in my coffee stream today. No, I don't even pretend to be on the same level with Einstein or Hawkings. Actually, I was paraphrasing a discussion with one of my kids, but I left out a rather vital phrase... While discussing gravity last week, I was asked if gravity was invented, or if it had always existed, and if it is the same everywhere. My example was something like (this is incredibly simplified and paraphrased!) "500 years ago, if you were on the moon, and if you threw a ball into the air and it didn't come back down to the surface of the moon, does that mean that gravity didn't exist?" And my daughter totally got it! She understood that just because it didn't have a name, and the location was different, the theory still applied. I couldn't verify it by watching something fall back to the surface there, but the theory was still valid. Geez, I'm still not sure that I'm explaining it right. It makes so much more sense when I'm talking to my kids! I'll tell you where I often wind up with chocolate other than my fingers (and it's NOT my elbows). Your welcome to lick it all off! Oh, Freethinker...promises, promises...!
tinbud Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Can you prove God does not exist? It seems then that our existence was caused by the big bang and evolution. Maybe there is another answer, I don't know. But the two must be linked. If God exists, the big bang can not. If the big bang or another theory of how we came into exist is true, God can't exist. So, how do you prove evolution and the big bang exists?
Freethinker Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudCan you prove God does not exist? It seems then that our existence was caused by the big bang and evolution. Maybe there is another answer, I don't know. But the two must be linked. If God exists, the big bang can not. If the big bang or another theory of how we came into exist is true, God can't exist. So, how do you prove evolution and the big bang exists? Hi tinbud, welcome to our family. Hope you come back and expand on your thoughts. You pose a number of possible scenarios. But don't indicate which you feel would be the most accurate one. You do end in a question, so let me take a swipe at it. 1) You can prove evolution very simply. It happens all around us all the time. So that question is answered 2) Robert Woodrow Wilson and Arno Allan Penzias
tinbud Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: tinbudCan you prove God does not exist? It seems then that our existence was caused by the big bang and evolution. Maybe there is another answer, I don't know. But the two must be linked. If God exists, the big bang can not. If the big bang or another theory of how we came into exist is true, God can't exist. So, how do you prove evolution and the big bang exists? Hi tinbud, welcome to our family. Hope you come back and expand on your thoughts. You pose a number of possible scenarios. But don't indicate which you feel would be the most accurate one. You do end in a question, so let me take a swipe at it. 1) You can prove evolution very simply. It happens all around us all the time. So that question is answered 2) Robert Woodrow Wilson and Arno Allan Penzias What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean micro-evolution? Or do you mean one species, over time, changes to become another species?
Vaigyanick Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 The proof of existence of an object depends upon its nature.First we have to understand what do we mean by 'existence',and what costitutes a'proof',e.g,mathematical,physical or logical.So if GOD is a matirial object then a scientific proof based on physical measurement is neede.A mathematical GOD will need some deductive or inductive proof based on certain mathematical axioms.A theological proof requres a philosophical argument.Another problem faced is of of the REAL or ABSTRACT.For example what is the proof that 'mind' exists?.Here a problem of duality enters because first we have to define -What is mind?Now to define mind we requre a mind and so this will lead to circularity or you will have to take help of metamind just as to define a'language' you again need some language.In your question you have assumed an omnipresent,omnipotent.etc.God.The physical meaning of omnipresent is that the exitence is in all space and time.This property can be satisfied by a long range physical force say gravity.Is gravity omnipotent also?Here comes the problem.Whole universe is structured by the power of gravity,but is it the meaning of omnipotence because we talk of a consous God and gravity is not intelligent or having a mind etc.If God is merely a force then we can say a unified field is God.But then God is supposed to be having anthropomorphic characteristics such as Love,Anger,Mercy,Provider,Creater etc.I feel that no proof will be complete and consistent to prove God's existence.
GAHD Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 I fyou ask me, the only acceptible proofs would be a "burning bush" everywhere EXCEPT hollywood. Raining frogs, locust swarms, etc... can all be explained ayay, but a 7 story pyre of TALKING flame would be proof enough for most.
IrishEyes Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 From Gahd...I fyou ask me, the only acceptible proofs would be a "burning bush" everywhere EXCEPT hollywood. Raining frogs, locust swarms, etc... can all be explained ayay, but a 7 story pyre of TALKING flame would be proof enough for most. Ok, who else agrees that a 7 story wall of talking flame would convince you of God? I mean, if you saw that, would you immediatly drop to your knees and start worshipping Jehovah, or a different God? Seriously though, what about the Christian idea of a Rapture? What if it actually happened in your lifetime? You were standing in the checkout line at the Piggly Wiggly and BettySue just disappeared in front of you, along with half the people in the store. On your way out to your car in the parking lot (hey, groceries are free today, right!?), you see crashes all over, but no drivers. There are some people around, but most are as confused as you. Back at home, in front of CNN, you notice the news anchors are still around and feel relief, but you're not sure why. As you sit in your easy chair with your Budweiser (or your three-finger scotch, hold the ice), you hear of people all over the planet literally disappearing. No explanation is given. Some world leaders are gone, maybe even a congressman or two, a lot of the church clergy is still around though, some of your local pastors have disappeared... I mean, really, what would you think? Would that convince you of a God, or just not to eat Thai food quite so late next time?
IrishEyes Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean micro-evolution? Or do you mean one species, over time, changes to become another species? Oh Oh Oh, I know I know I know......waving hand in air.... one species, over time, changes to become another species This is NOT evolution, tinbud. It's speciation. Please make sure to clarify which you mean, as it REALLY upsets certain people here to have to explain the difference over and over ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And just stop with the obfuscations already or I'll sic my straw man on you!!! And welcome, tinbud. I'm sure your new voice will bring previousky unknown light to this dreary discussion. (Oh Freethinker, that hat to at least bring a small smile to your face, didn't it?)
GAHD Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 On rapture, I wouldn't look at it as an act of god, I'd probaly start wearing tin-foil on my head and watching out for low-flying spacecraft.. O.oSeriously, something along those lines might have me re-evaluating my beliefs, but not so much as fire vocalizing the words of "he who is 'I am'". right in my face while not consuming it's fuel source.I suppose my proof would have to be something that blatently breaks the "laws" I live by. Even at that I wouldn't be totally swayed; "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick" to those not privy to the tech.
tinbud Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 I don't think a burning bush would convince people of the existence of God. Sure, it worked for Moses. But then if you believe what Christians say about God, you may also believe that God opened Moses's eyes. Look at the other examples of miracles that were performed in the bible. Many people saw them occur but still did not believe. As for the rapture, there are also differing thoughts as to when God would claim his people. If it occurs 'pre-rapture' and people disappear, it will cause a fuss to be sure. Still, if things occur as they are prophesized to occur biblically, people will still not believe. Well, concerning evolution.. it's likely irrelevant although I made it seem to be more relevant. I should have focused on origin. So now my question is, do you believe the universe has a beginning?
tinbud Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudI don't think a burning bush would convince people of the existence of God. Sure, it worked for Moses. But then if you believe what Christians say about God, you may also believe that God opened Moses's eyes. Look at the other examples of miracles that were performed in the bible. Many people saw them occur but still did not believe. As for the rapture, there are also differing thoughts as to when God would claim his people. If it occurs 'pre-rapture' and people disappear, it will cause a fuss to be sure. Still, if things occur as they are prophesized to occur biblically, people will still not believe. Well, concerning evolution.. it's likely irrelevant although I made it seem to be more relevant. I should have focused on origin. So now my question is, do you believe the universe has a beginning? oops. I meant pre-tribulation rapture. Not pre-rapture... there is also the theory of mid-tribulation rapture and post-tribulation rapture. In any case, if things occur as they are written, some will still not believe. I know that because it is also written that people will not believe. The point is that miracles and the appearance of the supernatural is unlikely to convince everyone of the existence of God.
Freethinker Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudOriginally posted by: Freethinker1) You can prove evolution very simply. It happens all around us all the time. So that question is answered</blockquote> What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean micro-evolution? Or do you mean one species, over time, changes to become another species? Evolution is Evolution. The only ones that try such convoluted obfuscation are those that fail to understand Science. I mean micro-gravity, or I mean macro-wave /particle collapse. Ya right! What hog wash!
Freethinker Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by: Vaigyanick:In your question you have assumed an omnipresent,omnipotent.etc.God....If God is merely a force then we can say a unified field is God.But then God is supposed to be having anthropomorphic characteristics such as Love,Anger,Mercy,Provider,Creater etc.I feel that no proof will be complete and consistent to prove God's existence. While many people will use the term "god" in any number of ways, when it is used to define something other than a personal anthropomorphic intellegent first cause, the discussion becomes meaningless. I could say that to me god is the brown mushy waste product we flush down the toilet. If I should personally assign this defintion to the term god, I can definately prove god exists. But how has that helped an intellectually honest discussion? However, once we agree to use a well established symbolic representation, such as "having anthropomorphic characteristics such as Love,Anger,Mercy,Provider,Creater etc." and arms, legs, eyes, ...(as is the image most usually provided) then we can provide scientific methodology to test the claim. Thus we do NOT need "complete" proof anymore than we need "complete" proof for electrons or the ether. Further, it is not a matter of not having "complete" proof. It is a matter of not having ANY proof. With a complete and utter lack of even the first credible evidence to support a god of the type commonly accepted, tied to the obvious contradictions such an entity would have regarding physics, we can reject any such god invention.
Freethinker Posted April 28, 2004 Report Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyesWhat would I do without you keeping me in line? Must resist urge to kick her while she is down, must.... resist.... must ..... not..... Oh, Freethinker...promises, promises...! Bless you my child.
Recommended Posts