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 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.
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.
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
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.
hmm, here is a idea, did anyone ask him if he excists?
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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 don't understand in a physical sense.
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.
Trying to say that there
any scientific validity for an omniscient superbeing responsible for the AX>creation of the universe is totally ludicrous.
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?
Curt, the first one to the ad hominem attack loses.
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.
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.
Re: I am so sorryAXu 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?
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."
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.
It is the fundamentalist Christian whose opinon cannot be
changed, no matter what the evidence.
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?
I'm agnostic actually.
You mean if God physicallly appeared and started slapping you around you mig be reasonable and change your mind?
The idea that anyone who might disagree with your dogmatic metaphysical view 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 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.
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 condit
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It's because of science that I don't believe in God.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 AX>responsibility to some unseen force that you only vaguely believe in?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
All of that sounded reasonable enough until you brought the Cult of AA into it.
We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.
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.
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...
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
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?
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
ok, but thats like the chicken and the egg. each comes from the other.
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.
We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that AX>assumes that life started here by some magical force.
All of that sounded reasonable enough until you brought the Cult of AA into i
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?
who knows?
You mean, was the earth terriformed by aliens?
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 325 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 44:38:00 |
| Calls: | 508 |
| Messages: | 220032 |