• Proving God?

    From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to nightcrawler on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 15:02:00
    Corey heard from nightcrawler about Proving God? on 01-10-10

    Comparing your dog and butt to god(s) is not the same; we know dogs exist, n>because we've seen them; we know butts exist, cause we've seen those too n>(unless you were blind, then in the least you would have felt one ;) But no on
    has ever seen god(s).

    No one has seen a cosmic string, but string-theory and m-theory are alive and well. Gee what a bunch of idiots for believing in 8 other dimensions, right?

    Damn, those theoretical physicists should all be in church with those stupid theists, huh. Believing in shit they can't see. What morons.

    There seems to be good reason -in science- to think that our 3 dimensions are not all there is to the universe[s]. However positing the possibility that there
    is life there - even possibly superior life that has impacted or even created us, is laughable for some reason.

    What a joke.






    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...We are all made of the dust of stars...
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 03:24:25
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to nightcrawler on Tue Jan 12 2010 03:02 pm



    No one has seen a cosmic string, but string-theory and m-theory are alive an well. Gee what a bunch of idiots for believing in 8 other dimensions, right?

    Damn, those theoretical physicists should all be in church with those stupid theists, huh. Believing in shit they can't see. What morons.

    There seems to be good reason -in science- to think that our 3 dimensions ar not all there is to the universe[s]. However positing the possibility that t is life there - even possibly superior life that has impacted or even create us, is laughable for some reason.

    What a joke.


    The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't really understand how the scientific method works. Or, at least you aren't revealing that knowledge in your post.

    Theoretical physicists aren't allowed to "just make shit up". Anyone can say, "well there's a Magic Grandfather who made all this shit, and he used his Rainbow Powers and created Happyland." I could say it, Echicken could say, or the Pope could say it, and we'd all have about the same validity (none).

    But a theoretical physicist doesn't just start with nothing and sets off creating science from scratch. He starts from a firm grounding in the real, provable, observable universe. And, from there, he extrapolates on what he knows to be real and true, and starts formulating plausible ideas about what the nature of the universe might be.

    I hope that clears that up. I wouldn't want you to embarass yourself further.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to Atari X on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:24:30
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to Curt on Wed Jan 13 2010 03:24:25


    But a theoretical physicist doesn't just start with nothing and sets off creating science from scratch. He starts from a firm grounding in the real, provable, observable universe. And, from there, he extrapolates on what he knows to be real and true, and starts formulating plausible ideas about what the nature of the universe might be.

    And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesis that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true. I would hope, though, that a theoretical physicist would accept that even though they've proven something to the extent that they can with the information available to them, that there is always room for new information, and that something might come along and prove their theory wrong.

    I take no issue with well-proven theories being accepted as fact until something comes along, if ever, to disprove them. Without that, few if any of the things in this world that we believe to be true could actually be counted upon to be so. However, just because nobody is looking for proof of certain things doesn't mean that the proof might not be out there.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to echicken on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 13:02:33
    Re: Proving God?
    By: echicken to Atari X on Wed Jan 13 2010 11:24 am

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to Curt on Wed Jan 13 2010 03:24:25


    But a theoretical physicist doesn't just start with nothing and sets off creating science from scratch. He starts from a firm grounding in the re provable, observable universe. And, from there, he extrapolates on what knows to be real and true, and starts formulating plausible ideas about w the nature of the universe might be.

    And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesis that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true. I would ho though, that a theoretical physicist would accept that even though they've proven something to the extent that they can with the information available them, that there is always room for new information, and that something migh come along and prove their theory wrong.

    I take no issue with well-proven theories being accepted as fact until something comes along, if ever, to disprove them. Without that, few if any the things in this world that we believe to be true could actually be counte upon to be so. However, just because nobody is looking for proof of certain things doesn't mean that the proof might not be out there.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230


    hmm, here is a idea, did anyone ask him if he excists?

    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 09:05:00
    Curt heard from Atari X about Proving God? on 01-13-10

    The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't really understand how
    the scientific method works. Or, at least you aren't revealing that knowledg
    in your post.

    OK asshole, so it's OK to posit shit we can't see or have a prayer of EVER proving like extra dimensions. And I agree that it is OK. It's not repeatable or
    provable but it is somehow 'scientific' even though that defies the very defintion of what science as what is usually defined by idiots like yourself.

    However, to posit that there is some autonomous intellegence in those dimensions
    acting in some fasion to cause effect here is somehow not scientific and is frowned upon eventhough its the best explanation for what we see.

    That is bulllshit and all of your holier then thou replies won't change that. And poeple are waking up to this.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...Snapple "Real Fact" #50:Mosquitos have 47 teeth.
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to Corey on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 17:17:26
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 13:02:33

    hmm, here is a idea, did anyone ask him if he excists?

    I did. He said "No". Now I'm confused. :(

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From Ryedawg@VERT to echicken on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 16:48:34
    Re: Proving God?
    By: echicken to Corey on Wed Jan 13 2010 05:17 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 13:02:33

    hmm, here is a idea, did anyone ask him if he excists?

    I did. He said "No". Now I'm confused. :(

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230


    I am confused as to what excists means?


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ telnet://vert.synchro.net
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to echicken on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 17:05:29
    Re: Proving God?
    By: echicken to Corey on Wed Jan 13 2010 05:17 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 13:02:33

    hmm, here is a idea, did anyone ask him if he excists?

    I did. He said "No". Now I'm confused. :(

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230


    thats God, what a sence of humor.
    prolly tired of people begging for crap all the time.
    like when people ask me how I am doing, I say medium.
    or yo, whats up? my wieght mostly.

    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to Ryedawg on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 17:06:11
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Ryedawg to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 04:48 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: echicken to Corey on Wed Jan 13 2010 05:17 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 13:02:33

    hmm, here is a idea, did anyone ask him if he excists?

    I did. He said "No". Now I'm confused. :(

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230


    I am confused as to what excists means?



    geez, means my spell checker has died.
    hmm, do witches have a spell checker?

    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 17:37:00
    Atari X heard from Curt about Proving God? on 01-13-10
    Yo,

    I was perusing the echo and found this:

    "I have proof that god doesn't exist. By that statement, the only thing that can counter it is to provide proof that he does (if indeed I provide my proof)."

    I am really sorry for calling you an asshole. I just figured that condesending pricks should be treated as such. I had no idea you were a total retard on this
    stuff.

    Are you keeping your bicycle helmet on when you go out during the day and does your daddy know you are using his computer?


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...Snapple "Real Fact" #50:Mosquitos have 47 teeth.
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Smole@VERT to Curt on Thursday, January 14, 2010 05:28:45
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to Atari X on Wed Jan 13 2010 05:37 pm

    Atari X heard from Curt about Proving God? on 01-13-10
    Yo,

    I was perusing the echo and found this:

    "I have proof that god doesn't exist. By that statement, the only thing tha can counter it is to provide proof that he does (if indeed I provide my proo

    I am really sorry for calling you an asshole. I just figured that condesendi pricks should be treated as such. I had no idea you were a total retard on t stuff.

    Are you keeping your bicycle helmet on when you go out during the day and do your daddy know you are using his computer?



    He ate too many paint-chips as a child.


    www.freewebs.com/ralphsmole
    bullishmcgee@gmail.com


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ telnet://vert.synchro.net
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Smole on Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:32:00
    Curt heard from Smole about I am so sorry on 01-14-10


    He ate too many paint-chips as a child.



    No kidding. I'll try to type this slowly so maybe he can understand.

    He makes a metaphysical claim (there is no god), and then insists the claim must
    be true until and unless it can be disproven by physical means.

    Completely illogical. It is a stupid, overly worn-out illogical strawman that is
    barely worth even dealing with anymore.

    If there is a an extra-dimensional intelligence affecting things here, we would
    not be able to see that entitiy directly because we can only observe in these 3
    dimensions (for now). And it is entirely possible that said entitiy can only interact with our physically observable reality on a quantum level.

    Instead of puffing our chests, being condesending and throwiing insults(yes, I am guilty of that too), maybe we should spend time actually talking about where
    we might have come from and where we might be going with open minds...




    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...A pigeon's feathers are heavier than its bones
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to echicken on Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:44:00
    Atari X heard from echicken about Proving God? on 01-13-10


    And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesis e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

    He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It is multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand that.
    It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

    Just I can't prove that anyone is not the room next to me unless I can see into
    that room in some way.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...The average raindrop falls at 7mph
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to Curt on Thursday, January 14, 2010 20:37:27
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44:00

    And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesi e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

    He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand t It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

    You're absolutely right and I agree with you completely.

    If you define God as a metaphysical thing, then his existence can neither be proven nor disproven by science. My mistake was in assuming that, by testing the existence of God with this scientific process, he was keeping the experiment fair by allowing for the possibility of physical proof, defining God as a being with physical properties. Looking back it seems he was not defining God in this way, as many of his other statements would fail to make sense if he defined God as anything but a metaphysical concept.

    In fact, looking back upon it, it seems that a lot of what he said is very confusing. He describes a paradox in which God can only be God if he is a metaphysical, faith-only, unprovable being, so if you set out to prove God's existence and *found* physical proof, you would unseat God from the realm of metaphysics therefore proving him not to be God. Then he turns around and says that a lack of physical proof is somehow a disproof of a metaphysical God, when if God was metaphysical there couldn't possibly be physical proof.

    It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

    This would only be true if we all agreed to define "God" as a wholly metaphysical thing. One possible source of confusion here is that we don't all believe, or disbelieve, in the same concept of God.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Friday, January 15, 2010 08:18:04
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to Atari X on Wed Jan 13 2010 09:05 am

    Curt heard from Atari X about Proving God? on 01-13-10

    The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't really understand AX>the scientific method works. Or, at least you aren't revealing that know AX>in your post.

    OK asshole, so it's OK to posit shit we can't see or have a prayer of EVER proving like extra dimensions. And I agree that it is OK. It's not repeatabl provable but it is somehow 'scientific' even though that defies the very defintion of what science as what is usually defined by idiots like yourself

    However, to posit that there is some autonomous intellegence in those dimens acting in some fasion to cause effect here is somehow not scientific and is frowned upon eventhough its the best explanation for what we see.

    That is bulllshit and all of your holier then thou replies won't change that And poeple are waking up to this.


    People are waking up to believing in a Magic Grandpa who controls the universe and will spank us if we don't do as he says?

    No, there's no God, there's no proof of God, there can be no proof of God. God exists on faith alone - in short, he doesn't exist. Trying to say that there's any scientific validity for an omniscient superbeing responsible for the creation of the universe is totally ludicrous.

    God was created from whole cloth for the purpose of keeping the ignorant and easily led in line with guilt and repression.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Friday, January 15, 2010 08:20:59
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to Atari X on Wed Jan 13 2010 05:37 pm

    Atari X heard from Curt about Proving God? on 01-13-10
    Yo,

    I was perusing the echo and found this:

    "I have proof that god doesn't exist. By that statement, the only thing tha can counter it is to provide proof that he does (if indeed I provide my proo

    I am really sorry for calling you an asshole. I just figured that condesendi pricks should be treated as such. I had no idea you were a total retard on t stuff.

    Are you keeping your bicycle helmet on when you go out during the day and do your daddy know you are using his computer?



    Curt, the first one to the ad hominem attack loses.

    Maybe you should get God in here to help you.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Smole on Friday, January 15, 2010 08:25:44
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Smole to Curt on Thu Jan 14 2010 05:28 am



    He ate too many paint-chips as a child.


    www.freewebs.com/ralphsmole
    bullishmcgee@gmail.com

    So, you have this (snide comments and ridicule) instead of a rational argument?

    I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

    Christians crumple so easily.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Friday, January 15, 2010 08:33:38
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to Smole on Thu Jan 14 2010 10:32 am




    He makes a metaphysical claim (there is no god), and then insists the claim be true until and unless it can be disproven by physical means.

    Completely illogical. It is a stupid, overly worn-out illogical strawman tha barely worth even dealing with anymore.

    And it's logical to believe in some all-powerful creator who has no involvement in the lives of his precious creations? It's logical to believe in a God who says, "I love you so much, when you die, I'll bring up with me in Heaven, but if you are bad, I'll burn you in Hell for the rest of eternity?"

    It's logical to belive that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

    No, it's not logical to believe in a single magical creator how waves his magic wand and suddenly the universe springs up.


    If there is a an extra-dimensional intelligence affecting things here, we wo not be able to see that entitiy directly because we can only observe in thes dimensions (for now). And it is entirely possible that said entitiy can only interact with our physically observable reality on a quantum level.

    So what's the point in even worrying about him?

    Instead of puffing our chests, being condesending and throwiing insults(yes, am guilty of that too), maybe we should spend time actually talking about wh we might have come from and where we might be going with open minds...

    I started this whole conversation off with, "God does not exist. Discuss."

    It was a troll - a very successful one. And it's funny to watch you half-baked Christians try to come up with proof for God that doesn't come out as, "God exists because I believe he does."


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Friday, January 15, 2010 08:38:01
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44 pm

    Atari X heard from echicken about Proving God? on 01-13-10


    And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesi e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

    He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand t It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

    Just I can't prove that anyone is not the room next to me unless I can see i that room in some way.

    I think you are under the delusion that "metaphysical" means something
    concrete and tangible - but it is really just a blanket term for things that we don't understand in a physical sense.

    Like ESP, Witchcraft, and, of course, Christianity.

    Just because it's a BIG WORD doesn't give you any more credibility than you had before you used it.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to Atari X on Friday, January 15, 2010 11:49:35
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 15 2010 08:38:01

    I think you are under the delusion that "metaphysical" means something concrete and tangible - but it is really just a blanket term for things that don't understand in a physical sense.

    You clearly didn't read Curt's message if this is your reply. He was very obviously using the term "metaphysical" to describe something intangible and beyond the physical realm. And I tend to agree with his definition of the term than yours.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From Smole@VERT to Atari X on Friday, January 15, 2010 16:37:29
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Atari X to Smole on Fri Jan 15 2010 08:25 am

    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Smole to Curt on Thu Jan 14 2010 05:28 am



    He ate too many paint-chips as a child.


    www.freewebs.com/ralphsmole
    bullishmcgee@gmail.com

    So, you have this (snide comments and ridicule) instead of a rational argume

    I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

    Christians crumple so easily.



    There is NO arguing with a heathen. You'll never change your view.


    www.freewebs.com/ralphsmole
    bullishmcgee@gmail.com


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ telnet://vert.synchro.net
  • From nightcrawler@VERT/DARKSANC to Smole on Friday, January 15, 2010 21:53:48
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Smole to Atari X on Fri Jan 15 2010 04:37 pm

    There is NO arguing with a heathen. You'll never change your view.

    Not true. Although HE may not, I can't speak for him, but most reasonable people would be willing to change their view, providing they were convinced with evidence. It is the fundamentalist Christian whose opinon cannot be changed, no matter what the evidence.

    As this from fundamentalis Christian Kurk Wise demonstrates:

    "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

    Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
    darksanctuary.servebbs.com


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Saturday, January 16, 2010 22:11:00
    Trying to say that there
    any scientific validity for an omniscient superbeing responsible for the AX>creation of the universe is totally ludicrous.

    No one is doing that.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...Warning: Do not reuse tagline. Discard safely after use
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Saturday, January 16, 2010 22:40:00


    People are waking up to believing in a Magic Grandpa who controls the univers
    and will spank us if we don't do as he says?


    The idea that anyone who might disagree with your dogmatic metaphysical views can only be a religous nut is pretty obvious in your posts.

    "Mage Grandpa" Funny. That's not what I said and you know it. But you need to misquote, bend and stack the deck so you can be right. That is the problem of all athiests who believe science backs thier religous views.

    If you want to claim there is no God then fine, but leave science out of it because science can't help you.

    Christians who cannot be wrong have the same problem. This is a human condition.

    I said what I meant. Possible autonomous intelligence. Not a super being. Not the creator of the universe. I didn't say science could *prove* it either. I said science might be able to be used to look for the effects of such an intelligence and possibly someday be used to peer into these dimensions where such an intelegence might exist.

    If these other 7 or 8 other dimensions really do exist then why should we think
    that autonomous intelligence only exists here and not there? Isn't that like saying life can only exist on this planet and nowhere else? If these places are
    real shouldn't we be getting on with trying to observe them?




    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...... All we are saying is Give Nukes a Chance
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Saturday, January 16, 2010 22:44:00


    Curt, the first one to the ad hominem attack loses.

    On what planet? I'm pretty sure I can call you name and still be right about you
    being full of shit that science helps your religous belief that there is no god.

    This isn't about winning and losing.

    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...Screw this, I'm converting! Save us O mighty RA!!!
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to echicken on Saturday, January 16, 2010 22:50:00
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44:00

    And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothes
    that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

    He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It
    multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand
    It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

    You're absolutely right and I agree with you completely.

    Thanks. I'm glad someone else sees this.

    This would only be true if we all agreed to define "God" as a wholly e>metaphysical thing. One possible source of confusion here is that we don't al
    believe, or disbelieve, in the same concept of God.


    I don't really care who believes what except when it comes to HOW they get there. Athiests who want to claim science helps thier religous views are going to get an earful here. Xians who want to do the same will get the same earful.




    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...This message has ended, go in peace...
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Saturday, January 16, 2010 23:11:00
    Re: I am so sorry
    AXu are bad, I'll burn you in Hell for the rest of eternity?"

    It's logical to belive that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

    All the strawmen you can muster won't change anything. Science won't help your religous view.

    It was a troll

    DUH! Like it wasn;t obvious?

    - a very successful one.

    I agree. We all got to see you claim that you can prove that God does not exist.

    You failed BTW.

    And it's funny to watch you
    half-baked Christians

    I'm agnostic actually.

    try to come up with proof for God that doesn't come out
    as, "God exists because I believe he does."

    I do not know that he exists so I would never make that claim that he does.

    I also know better than to try to come up with proof for God or proof for NO God.

    I think he *probably* does exist. But I don't know for sure and I could be wrong
    about that. I've gone from athiest to agnostic to semi-more-than-not-thiest.

    It might help you to get less black and white about all of this. It's not fact OR faith unless that's your choice.

    I





    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...This tagline is SHAREWARE! To register, send me $10
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to nightcrawler on Saturday, January 16, 2010 23:19:00

    Not true. Although HE may not, I can't speak for him, but most reasonable n>people would be willing to change their view, providing they were convinced n>with evidence.

    You mean if God physicallly appeared and started slapping you around you might be reasonable and change your mind?


    It is the fundamentalist Christian whose opinon cannot be
    changed, no matter what the evidence.

    There are plenty of fundies in the world who have given up thier faith when they
    could no longer believe in a global flood with an Ark full of dinosuars.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...This tagline is SHAREWARE! To register, send me $10
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From nightcrawler@VERT/DARKSANC to Curt on Sunday, January 17, 2010 17:05:54
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to nightcrawler on Sat Jan 16 2010 11:19 pm

    Not true. Although HE may not, I can't speak for him, but most reasonable n>people would be willing to change their view, providing they were convince n>with evidence.

    You mean if God physicallly appeared and started slapping you around you mig be reasonable and change your mind?

    Pretty much, yeah, that's what it would take. I ask for nothing more than what Thomas asked for or Paul.

    Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
    darksanctuary.servebbs.com


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com
  • From nightcrawler@VERT/DARKSANC to Curt on Sunday, January 17, 2010 17:50:04
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to Atari X on Sat Jan 16 2010 11:11 pm

    I'm agnostic actually.

    Could have fooled me.

    Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
    darksanctuary.servebbs.com


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com
  • From nightcrawler@VERT/DARKSANC to Curt on Sunday, January 17, 2010 18:06:26
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to nightcrawler on Sat Jan 16 2010 11:19 pm

    You mean if God physicallly appeared and started slapping you around you mig be reasonable and change your mind?

    These videos pretty much sum up my sentiments.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkiBnadS0I4

    as well as

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoAei5Wsfis

    Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
    darksanctuary.servebbs.com

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Sunday, January 17, 2010 17:49:34
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to Atari X on Sat Jan 16 2010 10:40 pm



    The idea that anyone who might disagree with your dogmatic metaphysical view can only be a religous nut is pretty obvious in your posts.


    Anyone who would disagree with me would be someone who has faith that there is a God, simple as that.

    "Mage Grandpa" Funny. That's not what I said and you know it. But you need t misquote, bend and stack the deck so you can be right. That is the problem o all athiests who believe science backs thier religous views.


    Science does back my lack of religious views. I have beaten that point into the ground, I think.

    If you want to claim there is no God then fine, but leave science out of it because science can't help you.


    It's because of science that I don't believe in God.


    Christians who cannot be wrong have the same problem. This is a human condit

    Yes, I see how we are the same. I believe in rational explanations of the universe, and Christians believe in fantasy worlds with magic angels and sinister demons.

    Yes, I see how we are soooo similar.


    I said what I meant. Possible autonomous intelligence. Not a super being. No the creator of the universe. I didn't say science could *prove* it either. I said science might be able to be used to look for the effects of such an intelligence and possibly someday be used to peer into these dimensions wher such an intelegence might exist.

    There might also be purple dinosaurs on distant planets. It doesn't mean I am going to waste my time postulating their existence. I am asking, "what can god do for me?" and you answering, "god's across the street and can't hear me."

    If these other 7 or 8 other dimensions really do exist then why should we th that autonomous intelligence only exists here and not there? Isn't that like saying life can only exist on this planet and nowhere else? If these places real shouldn't we be getting on with trying to observe them?

    First off, it's science fiction to assume that other dimenions will be somethign that we can experience at all. And bad science fiction at that.

    But, to address your assertion - in a universe that is nearly infinite, then there are nearly an infinite number of possibilities for what secrets our universe might hold. Anything you can make up is probably as plausible as anything anyone else could make up. But, through observation, gathering data, making theories, and eliminating contradictions, we can come to the truth.

    And the truth is, there is no evidence that someone else is driving this boat, and lots of evidence that evolution and slowly methodical processes are.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Sunday, January 17, 2010 17:50:50
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to Atari X on Sat Jan 16 2010 10:44 pm



    Curt, the first one to the ad hominem attack loses.

    On what planet? I'm pretty sure I can call you name and still be right about being full of shit that science helps your religous belief that there is no

    This isn't about winning and losing.


    Simple logical, Curt. The first person to resort to personal attacks has run out of arguments to use. He can't come up with any other retort than a personal attack. In this case, that would be you.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Monday, January 18, 2010 15:31:00

    And the truth is, there is no evidence that someone else is driving this boat
    and lots of evidence that evolution and slowly methodical processes are.



    I don't believe that is neccesarily true. I think you *might* be mistaken. Evolution is a slippery word. Change over time is obvious. What is not obvious is how life started here, why the fossil record is such a mess for Darwin's theories, or why even the simplest protocell is still so impossible to build.

    It IS obvious however that if you even start to question "evolution", then you are immediatley branded a creationist, etc etc.

    I guess we can question everything except "sceince" which is too bad becasue science only gets better by being questioned.





    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...Matt's BBS is up and running. Login already.
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Monday, January 18, 2010 20:42:00
    Yes, I see how we are the same. I believe in rational explanations of the AX>universe, and Christians believe in fantasy worlds with magic angels and AX>sinister demons.

    Yes, I see how we are soooo similar.

    No you don't. The similarity is that niether of you are capable of correction in
    the area of your religous views.

    But if you want proof that there is no God, then we all now have it. NO LOVING GOD WOULD ALLOW MY BELOVED CHARGERS TO BE BEATEN BY THE JETS AT HOME OR ANYHWERE
    ELSE!!!

    Any hope of theism I had is now dead and buried with all my hopes and dreams. I
    wish the world would just explode.

    I hope you are happy now. I am utterly broken.

    It's because of science that I don't believe in God.

    I used to say that too. The day I turned atheist was up until that moment the most liberating moment of my life. God didn't exist and if he did, he was sure going out of hisway to hide himself, that was for damn sure.



    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...A pigeon's feathers are heavier than its bones
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Monday, January 18, 2010 20:46:00

    Simple logical, Curt. The first person to resort to personal attacks has run
    out of arguments to use. He can't come up with any other retort than a AX>personal attack. In this case, that would be you.

    *Choosing* to call you an asshole becasue you are acting like it doesn't mean a
    damn thing other then you were acting like an asshole, OK? Nothing more, nothing
    less. I know you are smart enough to kow this already so why did you even bother
    posting that?

    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...This message has ended, go in peace...
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to nightcrawler on Monday, January 18, 2010 20:50:00
    You mean if God physicallly appeared and started slapping you around you mi
    be reasonable and change your mind?

    Pretty much, yeah, that's what it would take. I ask for nothing more than what
    Thomas asked for or Paul.


    Yeah, I asked for that once. Instead of getting a beam of light or getting to put my fingers in Jesus' wounds, within a few days of making an honest plea, I was walking away from an 85mph head-on collsion with a big palm tree.

    5 minutes later I had my 2nd miracle which was not getting shot while beating the shit out of the sherrif's dog (I made that fu**ing dog lay down and stay there). The next miracle was not pulling more charges for beating the shit out
    of someone in jail for not letting me sleep....

    The biggest miracle is the fact I decided to give spiritual principles a fair shot in my life after what I thought God *MIGHT HAVE* done for me. I figured it
    was the leastI could do.

    All I know is that I used to be sick, and now I'm a lot less sick. I don't even
    know or care if God is a force, a 'she' who lives in the earth, a big old guy with a beard and stone tablets - whatever. I don't care. I believe there is a physically undetectable compasionate inteligence and that I have somehow tapped
    into that source.

    I can't see it. I can only see it's effects and therefore I believe I have a reasonable faith and I also believe it would be unreasonable for me to continue
    in defacto atheism. My circumstances require me to have open mind.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...... All we are saying is Give Nukes a Chance
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 08:40:27
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to Atari X on Mon Jan 18 2010 03:31 pm


    I don't believe that is neccesarily true. I think you *might* be mistaken. Evolution is a slippery word. Change over time is obvious. What is not obvio is how life started here, why the fossil record is such a mess for Darwin's theories, or why even the simplest protocell is still so impossible to build

    It IS obvious however that if you even start to question "evolution", then y are immediatley branded a creationist, etc etc.

    I guess we can question everything except "sceince" which is too bad becasue science only gets better by being questioned.

    The best part about science is that it doesn't give many facts, it only suggests things that are probably facts based on a preponderance of evidence.

    For example, there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that evolution is, in fact, a reality.

    They have a pretty good idea of how life started here, and it begins with self-replicating molecules in the chemical soup that was the birth of our planet.

    As far as the fossil record goes, that's a strawman and a distortion. There's an abundance of evidence suggested by the fossil record that suggest evolution.

    Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the evidence laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you suggest?


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 08:44:20
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 18 2010 08:50 pm


    Yeah, I asked for that once. Instead of getting a beam of light or getting t put my fingers in Jesus' wounds, within a few days of making an honest plea, was walking away from an 85mph head-on collsion with a big palm tree.

    5 minutes later I had my 2nd miracle which was not getting shot while beatin the shit out of the sherrif's dog (I made that fu**ing dog lay down and stay there). The next miracle was not pulling more charges for beating the shit of someone in jail for not letting me sleep....

    The biggest miracle is the fact I decided to give spiritual principles a fai shot in my life after what I thought God *MIGHT HAVE* done for me. I figured was the leastI could do.

    All I know is that I used to be sick, and now I'm a lot less sick. I don't e know or care if God is a force, a 'she' who lives in the earth, a big old gu with a beard and stone tablets - whatever. I don't care. I believe there is physically undetectable compasionate inteligence and that I have somehow tap into that source.

    I can't see it. I can only see it's effects and therefore I believe I have a reasonable faith and I also believe it would be unreasonable for me to conti in defacto atheism. My circumstances require me to have open mind.



    So why not take responsibility for your life overhaul, instead of giving responsibility to some unseen force that you only vaguely believe in?


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to Atari X on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 13:44:10
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to Curt on Tue Jan 19 2010 08:40:27

    The best part about science is that it doesn't give many facts, it only suggests things that are probably facts based on a preponderance of evidence

    This is exactly how I see it. I side with science in all things while allowing that its facts and proof are only based on the evidence at hand and may change depending on any other evidence presented in the future.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From nightcrawler@VERT/DARKSANC to Curt on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 18:00:37
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 18 2010 08:50 pm

    I can't see it. I can only see it's effects and therefore I believe I have a reasonable faith and I also believe it would be unreasonable for me to conti in defacto atheism. My circumstances require me to have open mind.

    Wasn't it you a few messages ago that claimed to be agnostic? Sorry, but you pretty much lose all crediblity with me when you start lying.

    Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
    darksanctuary.servebbs.com

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 18:52:00


    So why not take responsibility for your life overhaul, instead of giving AX>responsibility to some unseen force that you only vaguely believe in?



    Excelent question. The main reason is that me taking responsibility for an overhaul only made things worse to the point where I was nearly killed more than
    once. The overhaul slipped further and further away the harder I tried to reach
    for it. I was utterly powerless to make consecutive good choices for any length
    of time.

    I began to practice the spiritual principles of recovery that were laid down in
    the 12 steps of AA and have been adopted by many organizations and millions of people since.

    Step 1 got really easy by the time I was willing to take it seriously:

    (The X in step 1 is whatever it is that has kicked your ass. It can be dope, women, food, tobacco or whatever)

    1. We admitted we were powerless over X - that our lives had become unmanageable.

    Fortunately step 1 is the only one that needs working 100%. Step 2 was harder to
    swallow:

    2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

    And I could bore you by going on and on. The point is that with all I've been through it is now at the point where it is irrational *FOR ME* to proclaim that
    there is no God with any condfidence. I cannot claim that there IS a God with much more confidence either. I'm stuck in the middle and frankly it's worrking for me.

    But I sure as hell am not going to turn my back on the faith that has borne itself out as the greatest positive *real* force in my life with *real* results
    to back it up. That would be stupid on any planet.




    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 19:36:00

    They have a pretty good idea of how life started here, and it begins with AX>self-replicating molecules in the chemical soup that was the birth of our AX>planet.

    Damn it. I hate getting sucked into this shit because really it isn;t that important to me -BUT- what you are talking about abiogenesis through protocells.
    HUGE problems with that. Seems they can't build a protocell let alone even hope
    to get a protocell build itself *eventhough we know how they work*.


    As far as the fossil record goes, that's a strawman and a distortion. There's
    an abundance of evidence suggested by the fossil record that suggest evolutio


    The fossil record is jumbled up badly. That's not a strawman. The fossil record
    shows life here as soon as the planet can support it - which so far according to
    science isn't possible. A basic self-replicating protocell is an incredible problem right now. People are working on it. And I really do hope they make progress but so far it doesn't look so hot.

    Then we have relatively little change for billions of years and bam, then this inexplicable explosion of diversty. Both of these facts are against what we should expect to find from the theory of starting simple and getting gradually more and more complex.

    Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the eviden
    laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you suggest?

    I would like to see further RnD with protocell construction. At some point we're
    going to have to cave if we can't get one to poof into existence on it's own. Building one in a lab will not do. Although building a self-replicating protocell would be a good and awesome step in the right direction, building one
    only proves that inteligent beings can start life. And that is the definition of
    Intelegent Design.

    In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need to replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here practially as soon as the planet would support it.




    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...This tagline is umop apisdn
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to nightcrawler on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 17:03:00
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 18 2010 08:50 pm

    I can't see it. I can only see it's effects and therefore I believe I have
    reasonable faith and I also believe it would be unreasonable for me to cont
    in defacto atheism. My circumstances require me to have open mind.

    Wasn't it you a few messages ago that claimed to be agnostic? Sorry, but you n>pretty much lose all crediblity with me when you start lying.

    agĚnosĚtic (g-nstk)
    n.
    1.
    a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

    I fit squarely into defintion A. I believe it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

    Applying spiritual principles that make no sense on thier face and having a good
    track record come from that leaves me *wondering* about some compassionate intelligent unseen force. So what?

    I've noticed that you are very black and white. This is not the first time you've hinted or implied that I am dishonest about this stuff. I am not.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...The average raindrop falls at 7mph
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Friday, January 22, 2010 19:48:29
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Curt to Atari X on Tue Jan 19 2010 06:52 pm



    So why not take responsibility for your life overhaul, instead of giving AX>responsibility to some unseen force that you only vaguely believe in?



    Excelent question. The main reason is that me taking responsibility for an overhaul only made things worse to the point where I was nearly killed more once. The overhaul slipped further and further away the harder I tried to re for it. I was utterly powerless to make consecutive good choices for any len of time.

    I began to practice the spiritual principles of recovery that were laid down the 12 steps of AA and have been adopted by many organizations and millions people since.

    Step 1 got really easy by the time I was willing to take it seriously:

    (The X in step 1 is whatever it is that has kicked your ass. It can be dope, women, food, tobacco or whatever)

    1. We admitted we were powerless over X - that our lives had become unmanageable.

    Fortunately step 1 is the only one that needs working 100%. Step 2 was harde swallow:

    2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

    And I could bore you by going on and on. The point is that with all I've bee through it is now at the point where it is irrational *FOR ME* to proclaim t there is no God with any condfidence. I cannot claim that there IS a God wit much more confidence either. I'm stuck in the middle and frankly it's worrki for me.

    But I sure as hell am not going to turn my back on the faith that has borne itself out as the greatest positive *real* force in my life with *real* resu to back it up. That would be stupid on any planet.


    All of that sounded reasonable enough until you brought the Cult of AA into it.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to Curt on Friday, January 22, 2010 19:53:32
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Curt to Atari X on Tue Jan 19 2010 07:36 pm

    >
    The fossil record is jumbled up badly. That's not a strawman. The fossil rec shows life here as soon as the planet can support it - which so far accordin science isn't possible. A basic self-replicating protocell is an incredible problem right now. People are working on it. And I really do hope they make progress but so far it doesn't look so hot.

    Then we have relatively little change for billions of years and bam, then th inexplicable explosion of diversty. Both of these facts are against what we should expect to find from the theory of starting simple and getting gradual more and more complex.

    Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the ev AX>laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you sugge

    I would like to see further RnD with protocell construction. At some point w going to have to cave if we can't get one to poof into existence on it's own Building one in a lab will not do. Although building a self-replicating protocell would be a good and awesome step in the right direction, building only proves that inteligent beings can start life. And that is the definitio Intelegent Design.

    In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need to replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here practially as soon as the planet would support it.

    You know, you cross up your facts so badly in your drive to provide a pseudo-intellectual argument, that you lose all credibility.

    We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to Atari X on Saturday, January 23, 2010 00:21:28
    Re: I am so sorry
    By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 22 2010 07:48 pm

    All of that sounded reasonable enough until you brought the Cult of AA into it.

    watch out.. your thetans are starting to show.. that 747 might come back and take you home to xenu.


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to Atari X on Saturday, January 23, 2010 00:25:15
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 22 2010 07:53 pm

    We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.

    can one not believe in god and evolution too?, we may have evolved from single celled goop but our intelligence was taught by some other power, what is your take on the pyramids in egypt, mexico, cambodia, the veritable airport in peru?

    just a though.


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA
  • From Atari X@VERT/DMINE to mrproper on Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:12:07
    Re: Proving God?
    By: mrproper to Atari X on Sat Jan 23 2010 12:25 am

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 22 2010 07:53 pm

    We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.

    can one not believe in god and evolution too?, we may have evolved from sing celled goop but our intelligence was taught by some other power, what is you take on the pyramids in egypt, mexico, cambodia, the veritable airport in pe

    just a though.


    Tim Smith (Mrproper)

    If I was pushed to come up with an off-the-wall theory, it still wouldn't involve a God figure manipulating things. It would probably involve visitations by a highly evolved race that has long since left this part of galaxy. That would explain a lot.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to Atari X on Saturday, January 23, 2010 20:59:55
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to mrproper on Sat Jan 23 2010 12:12 pm

    If I was pushed to come up with an off-the-wall theory, it still wouldn't involve a God figure manipulating things. It would probably involve visitations by a highly evolved race that has long since left this part of galaxy. That would explain a lot.

    same here.. even the bible speaks of ufo's.. you ezekial (sp) the wheel withing the wheel and chariots of fire.

    I'm not out to judge ones religion much, I'm too much a bigot, scientology seems crazy to me, and is of course fiction but some can be rooted in truth, just as true as the bible can be explained.


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to mrproper on Sunday, January 24, 2010 09:56:33
    Re: Proving God?
    By: mrproper to Atari X on Sat Jan 23 2010 08:59 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Atari X to mrproper on Sat Jan 23 2010 12:12 pm

    If I was pushed to come up with an off-the-wall theory, it still wouldn't involve a God figure manipulating things. It would probably involve visitations by a highly evolved race that has long since left this part o galaxy. That would explain a lot.

    same here.. even the bible speaks of ufo's.. you ezekial (sp) the wheel with the wheel and chariots of fire.

    I'm not out to judge ones religion much, I'm too much a bigot, scientology seems crazy to me, and is of course fiction but some can be rooted in truth, just as true as the bible can be explained.


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net


    I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
    i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you write about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to Corey on Sunday, January 24, 2010 16:06:05
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 09:56 am

    I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
    i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you write about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    who knows?


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to mrproper on Sunday, January 24, 2010 16:13:21
    Re: Proving God?
    By: mrproper to Corey on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:06 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 09:56 am

    I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
    i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you wri about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    who knows?


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net


    maybe we are setlers from another planet?
    and when we go here we turned retarded and forgot everything.
    maybe we were the scum on the universe and we got dumped here to fend for ourselfs.

    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From esc@VERT/MONTEREY to mrproper on Sunday, January 24, 2010 19:22:35
    Re: Proving God?
    By: mrproper to Corey on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:06 pm

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    Yes but...who created them?

    At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by something else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

    esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ :: montereybbs.com ::
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to esc on Sunday, January 24, 2010 20:20:50
    Re: Proving God?
    By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 07:22 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: mrproper to Corey on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:06 pm

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thro their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    Yes but...who created them?

    At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by somethin else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

    esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)


    ok, but thats like the chicken and the egg. each comes from the other.

    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to Corey on Sunday, January 24, 2010 22:35:04
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:13 pm

    maybe we are setlers from another planet?
    and when we go here we turned retarded and forgot everything.
    maybe we were the scum on the universe and we got dumped here to fend for ourselfs.

    could be.. point taken.. this debate is useless.


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to esc on Sunday, January 24, 2010 22:37:47
    Re: Proving God?
    By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 07:22 pm

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    Yes but...who created them?

    At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by something else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

    Yeah.. the chicken or the egg.. I dunno.. and I will never in my natural life know.. but if this universe and everything in it just "banged" into existance where did the pressure come from to create the matter, and where is from?


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA
  • From Corey@VERT/TSGC to mrproper on Monday, January 25, 2010 00:48:55
    Re: Proving God?
    By: mrproper to esc on Sun Jan 24 2010 10:37 pm

    Re: Proving God?
    By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 07:22 pm

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    Yes but...who created them?

    At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by something else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

    Yeah.. the chicken or the egg.. I dunno.. and I will never in my natural lif know.. but if this universe and everything in it just "banged" into existanc where did the pressure come from to create the matter, and where is from?


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net


    geez, people are still banged into existance now... :)
    or are people just screwed together?


    Caput meum major podice meo.
    This message has ended, go in peace...


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to esc on Monday, January 25, 2010 11:45:26
    Re: Proving God?
    By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 19:22:35

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thro their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    Yeah, there's no reason why this couldn't be the case, but . . .

    Yes but...who created them?

    At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by somethin else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

    You've hit the nail on the head. By attributing our creation to something else we're only deferring the problem; at some point the question of how our creator(s) was(were) created. The idea that the universe just suddenly exploded out of nothing is no less valid or difficult to wrap the brain around than to accept the concept of infinity and a god who has simply always been there. We're always faced with the question of exactly how this all got started, at its very root.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From echicken@VERT/ECBBS to Corey on Monday, January 25, 2010 11:54:57
    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to esc on Sun Jan 24 2010 20:20:50

    ok, but thats like the chicken and the egg. each comes from the other.

    Now they do, but at one point either the first chicken laid the first egg after having acquired the ability to do so, or the first chicken hatched out of the egg of some slightly less evolved bird (or maybe even a lizard.) It's a fine way to describe a paradox but I don't think it's meant to be interpreted literally.

    And the post that you're replying to is basically saying that aliens-as-our-creators is not an answer in itself because we still want to know where those aliens came from in the first place. You're not exactly disagreeing with him even though your phrasing makes it seem that way.

    echicken
    electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 23:14:00


    In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need t
    replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here
    practially as soon as the planet would support it.

    You know, you cross up your facts so badly in your drive to provide a AX>pseudo-intellectual argument, that you lose all credibility.

    Please tell us which facts are crossed up.



    We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that AX>assumes that life started here by some magical force.


    That sort of rhetoric only makes sense to people who NEED to have an all or nothing view about the so-called 'battle' between science and faith.


    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...... All we are saying is Give Nukes a Chance
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Curt@VERT/UBBS2006 to Atari X on Thursday, January 28, 2010 00:12:00


    All of that sounded reasonable enough until you brought the Cult of AA into i



    Yes, what a foolish irrational stupid cult who treats addictions as a spiritual
    sickness and is deluded enough to imagine progress is the result of rational faith put into action.

    Everyone knows faith can't be logical or rational so it MUST be a cult! And it BEING a cult
    only lends credence to the point that faith is illogical and irrational. It all makes sense now.

    Oh yes. I sit around once a week with other guys - from
    lawyers, chemists, DoD software engineers to fry cooks to guys in half-way houses - who have all drunk the AA kool-aid and deluded themselves into sobriety.

    EVERYONE in that group gave hard and soft science a shot before
    joining the cult. Drugs and therapy didn't work for any of us simple ignorant folk.

    We've deleded ourselves into having new meangingful depth in our relationships.

    We've deluded ourselves into being assets to our families and not liabilities.

    We've deluded ourselves back into productive careers and employment.

    We've deluded our families also because our families actually look forward to us
    coming home from WORK and not having to worry about getting calls from JAIL.





    --- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
    ---
    ...This tagline is SHAREWARE! To register, send me $10
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET
  • From Gryphon@VERT/CYBERIA to mrproper on Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:48:00
    On 01-24-10, mrproper said...

    Re: Proving God?
    By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 09:56 am

    I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
    i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you w about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

    who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have throw their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

    who knows?

    You mean, was the earth terriformed by aliens?

    Gryphon x Cyberia BBS x cyberia.darktech.org

    --- Mystic BBS v1.08 A31 (Linux)
    * Origin: Cyberia BBS | Cyberia.Darktech.Org | Kingwood, TX (2000:281/324)
  • From mrproper@VERT/WARZONE to Gryphon on Thursday, January 28, 2010 15:53:11
    Re: Re: Proving God?
    By: Gryphon to mrproper on Thu Jan 28 2010 09:48 am

    who knows?

    You mean, was the earth terriformed by aliens?

    I mean, anyones concept of our creation can be taken, nothing should be overlooked, if one has faith in one outlook they should be able to keep an open mind to other ways of existance.


    like i said.. Who knows?


    --

    Tim Smith (Mrproper)
    WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
    BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA