RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken

RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 11:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania We ought not to believe in things that make emotional sense to us?... Rhetorically there are three kinds of appeals: logos (logic or reason), ethos (goes to the character of the speaker), and pathos (an argument based on emotion). When it comes to a finding of fact, such as whether this person did this crime, holding the ideal of dispassionate logic is great. But I think we should make room even there for the sometimes positive role of emotion in attacking highly rational(istic?) challenges. Of course someone can spout theory about Jones actually using some kind of subliminal logic but then one could about as succesfully define emotion itself as a fallible but sometimes successful subliminal logic itself. That would be what the experts call "Blowing smoke up each others' ass." and for once the experts would be right. Both claims are epistemic nightmares of a very soggy variety. But the matter of whether to execute a murderer is bigger than a fact-finding, isn't it? It involves a question of value, not fact. Is emotion so easily relegated to a minor role in matters of value? I'm not sure. I will listen to arguments either way. For anyone stumbling over my use of "argument" by the way, I'm not using it in the sense of "disputation" but to refer to the particular case someone makes for or against something. As for the teleological argument (and the ontological argument and all of those classic arguments) well in the end they all can be seen to fail. They all fail on the very same terms that the arguments against them, including Russell's, fail (I'm not convinced that he meant it as anything more than a move in a parlour game anyhow.) *We can choose to see some* probative value in these arguments of course, but that is in the end an emotional more than rational choice, in my view. This is true just as we can see a home-made chocolate cake with birthday wishes and our name squirted on it as being probative to a degree of the baker's affection for us. But it is in vain--in the very terms of logical discourse--that we ask logic to decide a question which we encounter already as being about something larger than logic, or prior to logic*, if you will--if indeed it is anything at all.* The Parker Brothers, as far as I know, did not find that they were unable to live their lives in any way but according to rules of Monopoly. They built the fucking thing. They were the biggest part of the context in which it took shape and meaning so of course they would not be subject to its rules of operation. Insofar as the notion of diety under discussion involves viewing it as the origin of the world in some sense, well of course logic, being an undeniable aspect of the world, can no more prove the existence or non-existance of God than a given Community Chest card can provide a means of proving or disproving the existance of the Parker Brothers. *Does the very existence of Monopoly prove the existence of the Parker Brothers, by the way?* About as well as the existence of the birthday cake proves the existence of a woman named Betty Crocker. Great point, Yay! [:)] [:D]- Susan {Okay, the Parker Brothers didn't invent the game Monopoly. Charles Darrow did. The Parker Brothers at best deserve credit for somewhat reluctantly bringing the game to market. Don't cloud the issue with facts, alright? Betty Crocker sure as shit didn't invent cake either, by the way} * I really appreciated what I view as this very key point. - Susan [:)] Does anyone want to say that Logic itself is a condition of existence and so if there is a God he must have been subject to logical constraints when he created the world, or subject to logical constraints upon his very existence? Those classic arguments for and against God's existence can serve well as mental gymnastics (if you don't get too emotional about them.) If he says it proves God exists I may ignore him or I may fuck with him for fun or I may sincerely ask him about his notion of Proof. Call it intellectuall morbidity in me if you like. Logical exploration itself conducted with modest good sense can lead us to see that logical exploration has a finite range of useful application. It isn't logical to apply the tools of logic beyond this range. Kind of like walking to the edge of the continent can show us that walking has a limited range of useful application. Real simple. Never mind the Telos of Aquinas and the Ontos of Anselm or the Mentos of that fag in the TV comercials for that matter. And never mind all of their logical detractors down through the centuries. The range of useful application of logic stops somewhere short of where God is found, or not found as the case may be, or none of the words have meaning". - Noah This above,I think, is an extremely key point. [:)]- Susan "What about emotional God-searching?* If there is a there, there as far as popular notions of God are concerned is He/She/It accessible via our emotions? * Well I think it might be claimed that folks arguing that religion's mere existence, as well as Abrahamaic myths promulgating myths of genocide as being "evil"or "good", as far as "proof" God doesn't exist might be operating in the realm of emotion. Of course, I'm not sure...in any case, about as well as claims insisting "Godless human beings", like Hitler, for example, were responsible for creating an idea that might, simply because it may be followed by millions, because it can be construed as "good" or "evil" and, "evil" in it's name carried out by humans, somehow proves there fore that God doesn't exist. In fact, especially, maybe, if it's resting on the "Turtle of Logic" or assumption, that God created humans. Because the whole idea presumes there is a God on the first place. I see what you mean. Just because God might be accessible via human emotions, attributing religion, being a causal theoretical construct, (and a word) , and therefore a "thing" created by humans, it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore the Being some call God necessarily should, or is under an obligation to prevent "evil", or cause "good". That would be a theory, like "causality" (for many things) is a theory, I imagine. Because first you'd have to believe in an ethereal being called God (or not). Or at least be able to conceive of that Being. Which stll amazes me -I wonder how people conceive of ideas? Being able tol read? I wonder where the consciousness that alows that t happen comes from..still. Anyway - In order to construct a theory, I imagine one would have to believe in words, or at least the ability to sense sensing "things", and their power to provide (or not) that elusive thing called "inspiration". In order to do that, someone might have to believe in a type of language, and especially maybe attribute some power to language. In any case, you'd have to be able to perceive and construe a term like "evil" in an emotional "good" or "bad" way. But - that doesn't necessarily prove why or if God exists, or not. But it does still make me wonder where this "thing" some call human consciousness comes from. It can be viewed by some, I suppose, as non-sensical to be able to wonder, or even to think. Or at least, maybe illogical that peoploe are ab le to do it at all. But I am glad I can do it. - [:)]Susan "Once again, every argument in favor of such a claim is exactly as non-sensical as every argument against. I'm not saying worthless. At a certain point in life you realize how very subtly worthwhile nonsense can be, some of the time, for some sorts of things. But either way we have already seen that "beyond the reach of logic" is not synonymous with "non-existent." - Noah

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 11:12:43 AM)
[Awaiting Approval]

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 11:18:18 AM)
Naw, just kidding.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 11:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang That is literally unintelligible ... Whereas I might normally be inclined to try and figure it out, I just can't be bothered. Why should I make the a greater effort over it than yourself? I second Chaingang. It is very difficult to read such a confusingly structured post. The more so since what you yourself say is as disjointed - though interesting - that I am often hardly capable to comprehend what you say. These factors reinforce each other. 1 / x may be a small number, as is 1 / y, but their product - the comprehensibility of your posts - is about exponentially smaller. At the moment I do not feel well - I feel faint and disoriented - so when I saw your post 222 I just sighed and decided to read it at a later time when I am feeling better.

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 1:12:52 PM)
Chaingang: All I am asking you to do is to go re-read Noah's posts. They have a lot to say, and key points are reprinted in my posts that quote them. If you can be bothered to think about them anyway. I'm done discussing this this topic. I think Noah had a lot of good things to say that made it more clear than anyone has (to me anyway) that debating whether or not God exists is simply never, ever going to prove God exists. I also think he stated very clearly why this won't work. I thought his posts did this very, very well. It can't be done. Faith is not necessarily a logical construct. It's an idea. Neither, it might be argued, is the development of that "thing" called "logic" - a "causality" upon which you are apparently trying to disprove, or prove, God's existence. It does make me wonder where words came from. Language, and why it developed - or did not, though. And the fac t that you can sit and type words on a keyboard still makes me wonder where human consiousness came from originally. But - I can't "prove" that it's because God exists, any more than you can "prove" being conscious proves God exists, or is that God is responisble for "evil" - by implying God somehow might be "obligated" to stop it's spread. Define "evil". Define "good". Your whole theory that God should be able to stop the spread of evil, rests on the presumption that God exists to begin with, though. It has to. I do happen to think that's very ironic. But you probably won't see the irony in that, or in that that human consciousness, or the ability to understand language, or develop concepts, like atheism, monotheism, angnosticism, or "myths" could be a result of an all powerful Being. No, I can't "prove" it either way, but neither can you "disprove" it, by the same token. I am still curious why human language developed, when it didn't "necessarily" have to, as an ability within human beings. In the beginning, as they say, there was the Word. I am not trying to be facetious, or even humorous by saying that, really. I am saying I think it might be "true". Where did human consciousness and the ability to use words, beyond the mudane example that it was somehow "necessary for the human race to move (supposedly) "forward" and develop, when that didn't necessarily have to happen, come from? Why? I think that's a pretty good question. I think the connotation anyone wants to attribute to this all powerful Being some call God, that this Being somehow "needs to be responsible" for causing human beings to be "evil" and "good", or have a "sense" of "morality" or not, is a judgment of value about any particular speaker's or writer's sense of the value of the subject of the assertion itself. Simply because some humans may have abused the ability of language to get other humans to perceive their power in a way that can be "construed" as "evil", or as "good" or not - still doesn't get near proving whether "God exists" - or not. Who says that God (that is if he exists) would have an "obligation" to eliminate evil? And that therefore somehow "proves" that God doesn't exist? That sounds like a "myth" to me. But - it doesn't follow for me then, that religion itself is therefore "worthless". Or that there is cannot b e a God. Eliminating "evil" or creating a perfect world might be an obligation of God's? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. But that all depends on 1) Whethr you can allow for a possibility that God exists to begin with. It doesn't "prove" God exists, one way or the other. Where did consciousness come from? Answer me that. Or the human ability to create words on a computer, or on paper? Can you really answer that question? No. But -how are "myths" or "assertions" created - or promulgated- by anyone? With words. With words - and the ability to be conscious and perceive "things". Did Abraham invent language? No. He interpreted it, maybe. Did Bhudda? Did Hitler? Or George Bush? The pagans? Did Harvey the Rabbit? Why was language created? Because it was "simply necessary"? Then it could just as easily have been Un-necessary - couldn't it? I just loved the prove someone is lying example. You can't "prove" anything could be "true" without first aknowleding the possibility that it might be "false" (Otherwise - why are you trying to "prove" it? Likewise, an attempt to "logically" assert that something is "true" (or false) rests on the back ofYou can't prove the existence of God is a "lie: without aknowledgin first the possibilty exist that it might be true. otherwise, what a you rstin g your "assumption that it doesn't exist ON, anyway? Accepting some other premise, or "thing" might be true as a cause of it, that's what. It's a theory a construct, whether ikt's linguisitic or mathematical - whether it's in science - or religion. Prove somehow "evil" doesn't" exist by proving evil has not ever been "necessary" to have a "concept" of "good". That might be a trick. But it migt not prove it wasn't wasn't ever necessary. Because that is what you're doing with your "evil" argument, in attributing it to an all powerful Being. Aknowledging the possibilty it might exist, by simply alluding to the idea that it is responsible for "evil". Even if "evil" really is more than a mere word. Where do words come from? I mean besides the dictionary. Or anyone's "sense" of "right" or "wrong" or "morality" From some religions, possibly. It does Not therefore, necessarily, that religions are responsble for the theory that "evil" exists, attributed to any particluar "cause" any more than they might be responsible for the fact "good" exists attributable to any particular "cause". On the face of "things" anyway. Why would there be any faith in any creed or dogma or "religions" if there was no elusive construct some call God, to begin with? It would not be possible. But it doesn't follow, necessarily, that creeds and "myths" are responsible for "evil". How people preceive them, and decide to act on it might sometimes be - but then saying that might be making a "science" of the study of religion. Sort of like mathematics can be a branch of logic. Both rest on assertions - not "facts." Go back to the "secret thoughts" example. Do you ever believe in things you cannot see? Say your friend's ability to think of a number from one to ten? I thought that was great. If so you believe in "things you cannot see". This doesn't necessarily prove whether God exists (or not) maybe, n it it sure (to me) says a lot about the power of human consiousness - to create "things" - like words, and language and images, for that matter. Language didn't necessarily "have to "develop, either, i guess - but it did. Why, is my question. I suppose that doesn't necessarily "prove" God exists, but it certainly doesn't not prove it. It doesn't rule it out.God is a theoretical construct. But then, so is "logic" of develoment of logic. Because thery are based on language - and neither language, nor "logic", nor human emotion, for that matter, necessarily "had to" develop, either. But they did. Arguing they didn't would be kind of non-sensical, especially of one is basing te fact that some human leader's use of language and "myths" somehow propelled the notion of "evil". Where do notions of "evil" come from? "Myths"? People? Fine. Where did the language that created those "myths" come from? Or the human power to simply create, for that mattter - Can you really answer that question without attributing them to some "thing"? If so - what are you attributing it to? What are you attributing the ability to type words on a computer to? Not existing? Because your mere willingness to attibute "evil" to some "cause" or "thing", even if you cannot explain the origin of that "thing" really does, at a basic level as Noah said, seem to insinuate said thing is "larger than logic" itself. If you're trying to use logic to determine it's existence to begin with (which you are). Otherwise that "thing" or "cause" simply would not exist, right? You can't argue something exists, or not, unless you are first base that on the presumption said "thing" could exist. Unless you don't believe in things that you cannot see. Like lies or truth. Go back to trying to "prove" someone is lying. If X is true, it must also be false. If X is false, it could also be true. You've already said God, (if God exists, that is) is somehow responsible for stopping "evil", and if God were all powerful - "evil" would not exist. "Evil" is an idea. Maybe it exists - but my point is not that. My point is this - if you cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would you argue it does? Because you are conscious? Where did the ability to be conscious come from? Abraham? Moses? Harvey the Rabbit? I mean besides the mundane reason that: Well, my mother got pregant and bore me, etc.. I already know that part. Were you just "necessarily "born" with the ability to be consciuous - to think? Or what? Because humans being born didn't "necessarily" have to happen - at all. But it did. Illogical as that might seem to say. Neither did the ability to perceive words. Or "sense"things" (like "evil" maybe). Or promote them as "ideas" - "good ones or "bad ones" Or be able to learn how to read. Or type. Or percive elusive "things" by being conscious -things like "beauty" or ugliness" - or "evil", or "good" and attribute any "value" to them. Or not. Really. And the whole notion of yours "God should have necessrily created a perfect world, free of your elusive notion of "evil", rests on the assumption that if God existed at all, he would have done that, and therefore God must not exist. Maybe you feel or think that is true. But it's a far cry from proving there it follows that there must therefore be no Creator of the universe. I think it's been pretty much established that reasoning out whether God exists, or not, is beyod the reach of logic. Even though that might seem "illogical" to you. Because logic itself rests on faith in assertions, not "facts." Which means you have faith in some "thing" as a causative for "evil"- even if it's just the ability to be dillusioned that God isn't freeing the world from "evil" (and who's to say God isn't) and you want to promote the "myth" that you believe God has an obligation to do it, if he exists. Why would God, if an all powerful being exists, necessarily need to be bound by "logical" restrictions? Logic is a creation of words and words are a creation of consciousness - trying to perhaps explain the origin of words? It doesn't make sense, necessarily - but I am still wondering how human beings became conscious in the first place. Or have the ability to create - at the most fundamental level. Anything, from a cake to a cup of coffee, to growing theories. And nobody's answered that. I think it's because it's simply beyond the bounds of having a logical explanation. But, I choose to believe in that Being anyway. Just like you can choose to not believe in it. or logic, or the ability that you can really "prove" anyone is lying, or telling the truth, without believing the opposite assertion must also be a possibilty first. I am done with this discussion. I might this thread more, but really have not much else to say about whether it is "possible" to conclusively "prove" God exists or not. It's not - it's beyond the bounds of logic. And requires faith. Just like rel.ying on "logical" assertions requires faith. I simply have no more to say about the matter. For which, I am, sure, you may probably be glad (but I can't "prove" it). [:)] - Susan

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 1:41:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Your whole theory that God should be abe to stop the spread of evil... I make no such presumption. It's a classic proof as to why a certain kind of god cannot exist - specifically, it disproves the notion of the Abrahamic god. The proof leaves open the question of first cause because it doesn't address it at all. The general lack of evidence concerning the first cause is why I am an agnostic. I consider the existence or non-existence of god a matter of no consequence. quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Who says that God (that is if he exists) would have an "obligation" to elminate evil. Traditionally, the people of the Abrahamic faiths do that very thing. quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Why would God, if an all powerful being exists, necessarily need to be bound by "logical" restrictions? Logic is a creation of words and words are a creation of consciousness - trying to perhaps explain the origin of words? The omnipotence paradox is one of many arguments which argue that the definitions or descriptions of a god are logically contradictory, demonstrating his non-existence. This paradox can be shown through questions such as: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" No matter what you do you have to think of things through a human lens - that's inescapable. Does it present problems? Sure. As far as the issue of human consciousness, I would recommend "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes as a starting point. With that under your belt I would move over to readings in the general field of "cognitive science." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 3:03:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Anthrosub said I seriously doubt seeks gave consideration to anything. It's simply not his style. He certainly doesn't follow the rules of argument at the very least. I've tried many times to engage him but he refuses to discuss point for point. I cant understand the basis for that jibe Anthrosub. I only used your causes of rainfall example because it was in this thread and suited the point I was trying to make, Any number of things would have suited. For instance the appearance and description of the interference ring patterns produced by electrons. Similarly with the flow of electric current. Likewise with how gases behave. The current theories represent approximations to a truth. This could lead off into a discussion about the inadequacy of words to accurately describe anything. Maths appears to get closer, Heisenberg deduced that there is a fundamental limit to what can be known.. Uncontroversial I thought. Its no good shouting at me Anthro..... at the moment that is how things are in science. I repeat ....science does not explain things....doesn't even try to. Though it is a common misconception that it does.The problem there may be... what does explain mean ? Engineers come along and say consruct an electric circuit by using those approximations. The circuit works. Anthrosub concludes that is because of the scientific explanations. Wrong. It works because it is applied nature. Many things were made to function before a scientific explanation was developed. Okay...I apologize. But I do wish when I write something in reply to your posts you would at least address it. Why is that so difficult? I agree that science doesn't explain things in the literal sense of the word but we are not talking about the literal sense of the word are we? I thought we were talking about what science does. Using the word "explain" in the general sense, science DOES explain things. But I will quickly add that it does not explain everything...nothing does. Contrary to what Ayn Rand says, words do not have an exact meaning. Each of us has a different impression of what is said and this propogates outward to theories and alleged statements of fact. I don't need someone's formula to know that there's a limit to what we can know but that statement in itself is misleading. We will never know everything but we also will never stop learning (so long as we don't stop exploring the unknown). As a final note, I do not think things work because science explains how they work. That's your own distorted extrapolation. I think science explains how things work to some degree or another and that explanation gets refined over time. It has nothing to do with what already exists. Hell, math doesn't exist in the natural world but it works. It's probably the only language we have that cannot be interpreted. anthrosub

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 4:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, and most cosmologists accept Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds. So? I never trust the phantasies of physicists. I probably invented a many-worlds hypothesis myself in the mid-eighties - but must have discarded it for its logical impossibility. It is exponentially worse than the problem of who created the Creator. quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds is a completely deterministic theory. Undoubtedly I do not comprehend the theory. However, if it entails that all choices / possibilities are realized, then yes it is completely deterministic. Now cut away that googol of superfluous universes that clutter reality until you have only our one universe. If we cannot communicate / interact with those other universes, they by definition do not exist. Is our single universe than still completely deterministic? Can anyone accurately predict the position and the velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time? quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip Schrodinger's equation is completely deterministic. You probably say so because of these three assumptions: a. [The wavefunction has] an observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object. b. The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. c. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction. These are sensible assumptions. Does a tree make noise when it falls in the forest while no-one is around? Yes. I agree with most of these assumptions. But: when a particle of radiation interacts with a particle of matter, there is an observer, to wit the particle of matter; the wave function does collapse. (I may also argue that the spirituality that pervades the universe observes everything that happens, but let us not go into that.) Even without an observer the noise that the falling tree makes will affect its immediate surroundings. quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip The nascient universe was in the exact same position as Buridan's ass. If Buridan's ass could have gone toward both bushels of hay, it would have done so. When you aim a quantum mechanical particle at an obstruction with two holes in it, it will go through both holes. Once on the other side, though, there are not two particles, but only the single one. From this we must conclude that the universe will walk all paths to arrive at its destination, but that there is only a single destination - and that destination is determined by non-deterministic interference. quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip Check out Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ. Weinberg says about quantum theory: "The final approach is to take the Schrodinger equation seriously [..description of the measurement process..] In this way, a measurement causes the history of the universe for practical purposes to diverge into different non-interfering tracks, one for each possible value of the measured quantity. [...] I prefer this last approach" It simply presupposes an observer, thus negating the three assumptions that are at the root of the many worlds hypothesis. And I prefer to think that Weinberg truly believes his hypothetical fabrications, but that contrary to his belief there is no truth in them at all.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 4:15:55 PM)
Geeeezzzz, I would love to come into a thread sometime and actually know what is going on....This stuff is waaaaaaaaay over my head!!!!!

Lordandmaster -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 5:46:32 PM)
Alas, the same goes for them too, cuddleheart.

anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 5:50:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Alas, the same goes for them too, cuddleheart. Now that was funny. anthrosub

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 5:51:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Alas, the same goes for them too, cuddleheart. Now that was funny. anthrosub I know, I'm still sitting here LMAO!! And I sure needed a good laugh tonight too, thanks LAM!

KatyLied -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 6:38:01 PM)
This thread was more fun when people were arguing over the existence of god. But I do like the word "googol"

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 7:04:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Your whole theory that God should be abe to stop the spread of evil... I make no such presumption. It's a classic proof as to why a certain kind of god cannot exist - specifically, it disproves the notion of the Abrahamic god. * Oh. Yeah? Okay. The proof leaves open the question of first cause because it doesn't address it at all. * If it leaves it open, then it doesn't try to "prove" or "disprove" there may exist simply a nameless all powerful Being that could be called God? Not Bhudda, or Muhammed? or a pagan priestess, for instance? That doesn't resolve the question of the how a concept could even exist, if human consciousness didn't - though, unless a concept of an all powerful Being was possible then, that some choose to call God. Just the "myth" of an "Abrahamic god". So - you're not discounting the notion of an all powerful Being some choose to call God, just an "Abrahamic god?" I am not what sure what you mean by "Abrahamic god". Maybe you and Mel Gibson need to chat - he apparently said, or insinuated - that Jewish people could be responsible for the "evil" that exists in the world. Then again some people think it is the Christians - simply because humans exist and have religious beliefs. God bless America! The God on which Judaism is based. Or Christianity? or both? If an Abrahamic god cannot exist - then wouldn't you need to be basing that presumption on the possibility it could? And why are you complaining that - simply because what you perceive of as"evil" exists, God has not "removed" it? Or insinuating "evil" would not exist at all - if God existed? To argue either - kind of presumes an all powerful God exists in the first place that could somehow remove it? Right? The general lack of evidence concerning the first cause is why I am an agnostic. I consider the existence or non-existence of god a matter of no consequence. Wow. Tell me what you consider "evidence". If you're saying it's hard to understand there might arguably be 12 physical dimensions, and there might indeed be an infinite universe, join the club. Maybe the existence of the universe is cause by "infinite regression" in that sense. - I don't know. Maybe humans simply cannot understand it. They may not be capable of it, simply because - we are theorizing about an all powerful Being being possibly responsible for the possible creation of the entire universe! Why would this entity need to necessarily be bounded by logical constraints that apply to human beings? It doesn't necessarily have to be.* Because if it was - it could perhaps be explained by application of "logic" or "reason" which is a human construct (possibly inspired by the existence of an all Powerful Being. Or not). But not being able to understand it, doesn't rule out the possibility it exists. And yet this morning, you were complaining that if there was a God, "evil" would not exist because any all powerful Being would not allow humans to exist in an environment where "evil" existed. Any all powerful Being would destroy it, instead. That's a pretty emotion-laden statement to make. But not that unsual for humans to say, I admit. Which brings me to ...how did human beings necessarily develop the capacity to even have emotions? Got an answer for that? I mean besides the usual answers I have heard agian and agian about it being"necessary" for "survival"? Why was it "necessarily" necessary then? Know what I mean? This is a serious question - I am not trying to be rude. I really want to know the answer. As for you citing "Abrahamic myths" promulgating the notion of "genocide" Hmm. Okay. It's anyone's personal choice. It's certainly not a question resolved by applying what some consider "logical methods" necessarily - especially if the "fact" that "myths" exist at all is a central factor of your objection to an "all powerful Being" existing in the first place. I think the post about being unable to really "prove someone is lying" without fist admitting it's based on the possibility they might Not be lying (as grounds for the theory they are lying) pretty much proved that. "People being able to have "secret thoughts" pretty much established being able to believe in things one cannot see "proof for", as well. At least I thought so. And yet you are thinking that an all powerful Being- a being by definition you don't think could exist - is somehow obligated to stop the spread of "evil" in the world - or at least you were this morning- or this otherwise somehow proves that Being simply can't possibly exist? That's what you said this morning. IF God existed - he'd destoy "evil". Then you said because "evil" exists, Therefere this proves God doesn't exist. But - you still failed to explain the origin of the capacity for human consciousness. Humans being being able to perceive things as "evil" or "good" wouldn't exist without it, though. Because (I think) language might not exist, nor its development. And there simply would ne no words and no "theories" about much at all. quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Who says that God (that is if he exists) would have an "obligation" to elminate evil. Traditionally, the people of the Abrahamic faiths do that very thing. Maybe they do. Really? "Traditionally"? This sounds a bit pre-judiced to me though. Like poeple saying Muslims or the existence of Islam is responsible for "terrorism", necessarily, simply because the religion exists. Maye this is your point, and if it is I apologize. But - can you cite some "evidence" please? - otherwise this claim is simply an opinion attaching a "value" to people following Abrhamic faiths - a judgment - that they are passing along a concept of "good" or "evil" - which, you're right -may or may not be of much consequence - unless you can cite examples that teaching that particular faith is somehow therefore responsible for "evil" somehow existing in general. Which, btw takes a huge generalization, unless you are first willing to define that elusive term "good" as well as that elusive term "evil" - it in no way "proves" much about the value of this having anything to do with the "value" pro-or con- of believing in the possibilty thast an all-powerful Being could possibly exist. Or not. It probably insinuates you just don't appreciate what people believing in and-or practicing "Abrahmaic faiths" have '"done" with thier belief in an all Powerful Being, though- based on no cited evidence, I might add. And that's about it. I apologize for saying this - I really do - but it sounds to me like it could be "classic crap." Or whining. I understand it - humans do it all the time. people are upset about 9/11, etc. - and terrorism existing. But it doesn't exist because there cannot be a God. That isn't a "logical" assumption. But it is an emotional one. quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Why would God, if an all powerful being exists, necessarily need to be bound by "logical" restrictions? Logic is a creation of words and words are a creation of consciousness - trying to perhaps explain the origin of words? The omnipotence paradox is one of many arguments which argue that the definitions or descriptions of a god are logically contradictory, demonstrating his non-existence. This paradox can be shown through questions such as: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" Okay. Right. Well I thought Noah pretty much covered how something simply being logically contradictory didn't necessarily* establish it's complete non-existence which is high-lighted, below, in bold). To be asserted as possibly "true", something must also be asserted as "false" To be asserted as "false", the possibility it could, in fact be true must therefore also exist. Prove anything is a "lie" (let alone a "comforting lie"). Logic is a "thing" based on the developent of consciousness and language - and made of assertions, not "facts" The "Paradox of the Stone", too -If I remember, was used as a general example of this kind of paradox. That this paradox exists doesn't "dis-prove" the existence of God. Otherwise you are indeed relying on paradoxes to support your assertions. Dis-proving it would establish that God cannot exist as "fact." It might be able to hint an all Powerful being exists, or not - but that's about it. This simply says that "logical assertions" use language, which is a result of the consciousness we are attempting to prove or refute to begin with. Otherwise why are you attempting to use the human mind, and its abilities, to disallow the possibility an Originator of said ability could even exist? And humans, and the human mind, exist, right? An assertion that it does, or does not, is bounded itself by that "thing" called "logic" , which is a result of humans being able to develop cognition and language. Which is a result of being able to be conscious in the first place. Your "logical assertion" doesn't acknowledge even the possibility an all Powerful being could exist - at all. Which is "illogical" - or else what are you trying to prove? Especially by using conscioussness and cognition, to attempt to do this? If you are trying to "prove" , or "dis-prove" God created humans or the universe - you don't start out by not aknowledging the possibility of God's existence. And who said that Being's existence is necessarily going to be subject "logical" constraints, as humans know and understand the meaning of what logic entails? I mean, human minds conceived what humans understand as "logic" right? If this Being can create 12 dimensions, only three of which humans can perceive in the day-to-day, (and that can be "proved", pretty much by "science") why would that be true? That it would even need to be bounded by "things" we can neceesarily understand? I agree, it is a 'paradox' - but an almost laughable one (to me). It certainly doesn't prove humans* don't exist. That's for sure. And what youre trying to figure out is whether a Powerful being is responsible for creating them. Right? How can you do that be "eliminating the complete possibility of the "thing" or "entity" (God, or all powerful Being) at the start, that you are trying to prove exists to begin with? I thought there was covered already pretty great reasoning demonstrating why "logical constraints" are not going to be necessarily able to "prove" or "disprove" God's existence. Like Noah insinuated in his posts - I think we're not going to "prove the existence or not, of whether an All Powerful being exists, without first aknowledging the possibility exists first that it might - and also aknowledging that this Being would not (necessarily) have to be bound by logical constraints. Since the development of logic is a development of languauge and assertions, you first would need, the way I see it, to explain why* language would necessarily have had to develop as a human ability, besides the fact that it was "simply necessary" for this "theory" to exist (even though that's evident - at least to me it is). And I haven't seen anyone be able to do that. And to "dis-prove" the possibility of God's existence, we'd need to explain why human consciousness was "necessary". *Because if it wasn't necessary, this means it could just as easily Not have happened, then. If it didn't* happen (which we know it did, because humans are here on this planet, writing and thinking and feeling) there wouldn't be language or conscioussness at all** (I dont think so anyway) - ironic that I used the term"think. But yet here we are, typing away. You aren't suggesting you are going to be able to "prove" , or dis-prove the conscous mind exists, by reading this theory -or that that language doesn't exist? Are you? - Susan No matter what you do you have to think of things through a human lens - that's inescapable. Does it present problems? Sure. I never questioned that for a minute. As far as the issue of human consciousness, I would recommend "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes as a starting point. With that under your belt I would move over to readings in the general field of "cognitive science." Thanks for the reference. I appreciate the consideration. I may give it a go. But - It still doesn't "prove" or dis-prove" the Originator of consciousness as a human phenomenon, though. And it especially does not explain that an all powerful Being could somehow not be responsible for it. Or that One is not responsible for it. Because consciousness did develop Or was bestowed -somehow - it originated - in human beings as an ability - or we wouldn't be here typing and talking about it. Like I said on page three - that in itself defies logic - at least to me it does. (It is a paradox I agree. A mystery. An enigma) And somply because it is, it still doesn't "prove"it follows that - God cannot, therefore exist. *Also, if you're classifying yourself as agnostic, but using terms like "mind" or "cognition" or "consciousness" as having no "material proof" God exists, yet humans obviously do exist and have minds, and without one, you'd have no ability to conceptualize what may or may not constitute "proof" - and are citing a reference as to how the humand mind may have originated - doesn't that in itself strike you as at last slightly* contradictory? Not that I want to examine all "theories" about "why" it perhaps happened. Just that it did happen is what amazes me - when, to have happened at all - one first has to admit that it didn't necessarily have to happen (if one wants to be "logical", anyway). I am amazed by the occurrence of consciousness alone. That's why I am a Believer, unsophisitcated and illogical as that may sound. I really do believe that "proving" whether or not God exists - really Is "beyond the bounds of logic". It's matter of faith - just like faith in logical, or nonsensical assertions is. Assertions, however are not "facts". One can spout "facts" for the rest of time, and it's still not going to necessarily "prove" or disprove" an all powerful Being exists to anyone's particular satisfaction. That is indeed an irony. A paradox But - that doesn't necessarily mean evidence one does not exist, or cannnot exist - because to believe it might not exist - or doesn't -you first have to aknowledge the possibility it could. Back to the "prove I am lying" example. If X is true, it is also false. If X is false it is also true. Because to prove anything is false - one first needs to aknowledge the possibility it might be true. You cannot prove a "theory" without basing it on some"thing" or some idea, to be specific. To prove anything is "true" you have to base it on the possibility* it might be false. You cannot prove a "thing" or entity exists, without basing it on some "thing" or idea first. Because the assertion of the possibility of the "thing" or idea" existing, has to rest on something or some other idea. A concept to be able to "prove" it wrong" or "right", "true" or "false". Concepts are ideas. The ability to perceive them is a result of being able to be cognizant. **I am saying nobody has conclusively proved that ability didn't* originate without an all Powerful Being. Any more than they have proved it has - and they still haven't explained the origin of the universe - in any case - or why anyone is here, and is not a mere figment of their own imagination. And yet I think it's safe to say that humans exist. *Why, or how they got here, maybe* is anybody's guess. But I believe that fallible humans probably aren't responsible for the occurrence*. So "myths" about how and why humans arrived on Earth or the creation of "myths" or religions surrounding the idea, and attributing "good" or"bad" motives to the all powerful Being, or its creation - human beings - does not particularly surprise me. People who are curious do want to know. But I would certainly consider it arrogant* for anyone to say the possibility simply cannot exist - as it's pretty clear to me, humans have been on planet Earth for eons. And that life itself is a gift in many, many ways. I found this out partly by being cognizant of words in a bookS), as result of my human ability to be conscious and learn and think and feel, btw. Which I also believe is very amazing. And, at it's core, I think this occurrence in general, as it applies to humans, is almost inexplicable as an ability to begin with. Whether Humans use this ability to promulgate "myths" about why the world is flat - or why people would not like another race, or whatever it is people do (murder, for instance) that thay want to attribute to the mere "development" of religion as a phenomena that developed as an explanation about why or how God exists - still can conclusively say nothing about conclusively proving whether or not this all powerful Being actually does exist. But I still believe this Being does exist.It may mean it cannot be "proven" to someone's particular satisfaction, perhaps. But it certainly does not "prove" it cannot ever have happened. Otherwise, why is anyone trying to "prove the existence" of the all Powerful Being? And where did they attain the human conscioussness to even attempt that feat? Because believing in an all powerful Being is not ever going to necessarily need to be an assertion that is required to be bounded by logical constraints to exist - if the "logic" and ability to formulate it, via cognizant thought and words and perceiving them - if the "thing" or "entity" attempting to be "proved" to begin with is the Creator of the universe (and thus the human mind), as well as everything in it to begin with. I mean, humans created words...or did they? How exactly did the ability develop?[;)] [:D]Because it wasn't "necessarily necessary"? If so, That's a Magic 8 ball as far as "logic" goes. Hmmm. When it didn't necessarily have to be the case. "Indeterministic view". "Deterministic view". Take your pick. This still does not conclusively "prove" or "dis-prove" it had to happen in the first place - or that it was "destined" to be. At all. But to me, that's the issue you are using to try to indicate whether (or not) there are indications there is an all powerful Being some call God. Believing in any "thing" though is itself an act of "faith" - just like an assertion there is a causal factor anyway (in math or "logic", or language), or or a religion, or a science. I'm not particularly interested in why assertions exist about "proving God's existence", or not. I am merely amazed human beings are conscious enough to develop them when that didn't necessarily need to happen - *You are using the mind to "prove or disprove, its existence. That ought to tell you something. Some may chalk up the development of the fact human consciousness exists (and language, whihc enables assertions - about anything, btw) to "coincidence" - But - what was it incidental To? Unless the "logic" you really are using to try to"prove" or dis-prove its existence really is a form of some Magic 8 ball?* That's what I'd like to know...and Why does consiousness exist? Or language? It might be an unanswerable question. And simply for that reason alone - I think it shouldn't surprise anyone that religions as far as explaining God's existence, have arisen. They have endured a heck of long time, though - of course "a long time" is a drop in the bucket compared to how long it's posited the universe haas actually been in existence. That's pretty amazing, too, I think. Unless one wants to argue one isn't really here at all -which of course, flies in the face of what many construe of as "logic", and "reality". I feel evidence I exist. I can breathe. I can see. I can perceive "things". I can create "things" like a poem, or a drawing, or type on a computer. That's the amazing "happening" to me. Does this book you reference actually "explain" exactly how consciousness and cognition - (the ability to think and perceive ) and language developed in humans and why - **and especially when that didn't necessarily have to happen at all? Because unless it can answer that question - it's not going to prove to me there's no "proof" that God doesn't somehow exist. Or couldn't. Without conscioussness - I posit there would not be any "theory" about God's existence - or not - not atheism - not agnosticism, not monothiesm. *There would be no "theisms" at all - because no human would perceive* a need for an explanation of whether or not there is an all powerful Being - and no "myths" necessary about it's existence or not - would be created. Arguing whther consiousness exists or not - is like arguing whether you are here or not.*Because cognition, and language wouldn't necessarily exist at all - without the Originator of an ability for humans to be "cognitive" of science or theories about the "causality" of the universe - But yet we are here, typing. Doesn't that strike you as curious? Or odd, maybe? Has it occurred to you, though that it could be this simple: That if you weren 't conscious, and some powerful Being wasn't possibly responsible for that, that you would not be at your computer typing - at all? Or that nobody might be creating "theories" - about anything -or creating anything at all, perhaps? Does this book explain what created consiousness? Or just "theorize" about it? Because theorizing is a result of the ability to be "cognitive" of words anyway and or "things". It doesn't "prove" there could not be a God, or not. That aanyone can theorize about it, at all, is evidence enough - for me. Does it state why language developed as a human ability? Or anything at all about Why the ability to be conscious was *"necessary" at all - I mean as in exists at all -* Because I think it could just as easily Not have been "necessary". And yet I am here, typing. I see that question as Being the crux of the issue, or question, about believing whether there is or not a God.** Considering if "cognition" as an ability did not exist - I believe humans wouldn't be creating any "things" or ideas, for that matter. Not fire, not buildings, not peotry not art, not theories, machinery - or anything else. So - Unless this book you mention somehow explains the origin of the ability of human cognition - as well as Why it happened, when it didn't necessarily have to happen - I doubt it would lead me to believe there is simply no possibility an all powerful Being some call God, does indeed exist. But, I do appreciate you citing the reference, Chaingang. I think I am pretty much done discussing this topic. [:)] - Susan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 10:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Unless this book you mention somehow explains the origin of the ability of human cognition - as well as Why it happened... But then you are a person that has to have things like "Abrahamic faith" and the fact that such religions have at the heart of them beliefs in "good" and "evil" supernatural beings explained to her so what possible difference would it make? Would you understand it if the book did explain those things to you? Why should I be explaining theological ideas I don't even believe to you? I am actively arguing against those notions because they seem logically impossible and absurd to me (not that I am alone in thinking that way). If you also do not believe in the premises of the Abrahamic faiths, then we are in fact in agreement. If you need those premises explained to you I am not the person for the job. Why not? Because as a rule I don't spread what I believe to be nonsense. I am not your personal encyclopedia - try google or wiki. I am certainly not arguing in favor of some of the things you would seem to think I am. I am satisfied with what science has wrought thus far. A lot of it has actual utility and that's enough for me. You keep spouting off about mental processes as if their existence alone is proof of the deity. Well, it's not. Not to me or anyone else that rejects the teleological argument, or "intelligent design," as the worst kind of quackery. That's really already been asked and answered in this discussion. Certainly to my satisfaction. As far as I am concerned only a moron would try to argue for or against something of which there is NO EVIDENCE either way. But Occam's Razor does suggest that there is no point in complicating matters needlessly - thus, if there is zero evidence of god I can't see the point of bothering myself with the idea overmuch for the same reason I don't bother myself with notions like a six foot rabbit named Harvey (except possibly as a matter of entertainment). Only you and a few others here seem bent on proving that which cannot be proven. My concern is that some of you take these fantastic ideas into your heads and then think that they are the worthy subjects of legislation and the basis for public policy - that's my specific objection as a person of reason. If you want to keep believing in the idiotic "god hypothesis" so that you can feel good, worthy or possibly even loved in relation to some mystical being without an evident physical reality and whose existence is logically impossible - well then, go right ahead. It's certainly no trouble to me what fool thing you believe as long as doesn't intrude upon my life.

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 10:25:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied But I do like the word "googol" Amazingly, the term was coined by Milton Sirotta at the age of nine. Milton was the nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner. So yeah, it's almost baby-talk.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 2:14:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang But then you are a person that has to have things - like "Abrahamic faith" and the fact that such religions have at the heart of them beliefs in "good" and "evil" supernatural beings - explained to her, so what possible difference would it make? Would you understand it if the book did explain those things to you? I suppose that she asked for those explanations? LadyEllen defined good and evil in post 214. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Why should I be explaining theological ideas I don't even believe to you? I am actively arguing against those notions because they seem logically impossible and absurd to me (not that I am alone in thinking that way). So you have found a paradox. The thing to do is not to dismiss the paradox, but to resolve it. Paradoxes are always caused by misunderstandings, inaccurate information or falsehoods. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang As far as I am concerned only a moron would try to argue for or against something of which there is NO EVIDENCE either way. There is plenty of testimonial evidence in religions and in world mythology. Every day people experience miracles - whether good or bad. From an evolutionary point of view it is even more interesting that religions exist and that people all over the world - sometimes without being indoctrinated - adhere to religions and develop religious feelings. To an evolution biologist that is unmistakable evidence that being religious, having faith, is an important characteristic that ensures reproductive success. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang thus, if there is zero evidence of god Yes, if. There is, as discussed in the above paragraph, but you dismiss it. Neither does it help that you persist in clinging to the Old Testament notions about the Creator. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Only you and a few others here seem bent on proving that which cannot be proven. It was my impression that most agreed that the existence or non-existence of the spirituality that pervades the universe cannot be proven logically. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang My concern is that some of you take these fantastic ideas into your heads and then think that they are the worthy subjects of legislation and the basis for public policy. I have read all the posts in this tread and cannot recall anyone advocating that fantastic ideas are the worthy subjects of legislation and the basis for public policy. I may be wrong and my memory may fool me, of course (and I have not read Susan's last post). So pray tell: who are these some people specifically and in what posts did they advocate that fantastic ideas are the worthy subjects of legislation and the basis for public policy? quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang some mystical being without an evident physical reality Not having physical reality is inherent to being a mystical being. What you want is to sit in the lap of Santaclaus. The mystical being only has evident physical reality when incarnated as the gods of yore. You have probably met some or many of them some or many times, but never recognized them as such. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang and whose existence is logically impossible According to your very subjective and fallacious perception of such a mystical being.

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 2:56:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Paradoxes are always caused by misunderstandings, inaccurate information or falsehoods. I really can't argue with that. I would say that very thing about every religious crackpot I have ever met - that they feed on misunderstandings and spout inaccurate information and falsehoods. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There is plenty of testimonial evidence in religions and in world mythology. Ah, so now competing religious viewpoints - some of which are pointedly contradictory - are some kind of proof of the existence of a mystical being? Thousands of people can see the water in a mirage. It still doesn't make it actual water close up does it? quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Neither does it help that you persist in clinging to the Old Testament notions about the Creator. I hardly cling to it, I dismiss it outright. If you believe in an Abrahamic faith, it is you that cling to it - it is the cornerstone of your faith however much you may wish to distance yourself from it. Can there be a son if there is no father? quote: ORIGINAL: Rule So pray tell: who are these some people specifically and in what posts did they advocate that fantastic ideas are the worthy subjects of legislation and the basis for public policy? It is a general concern, not a concern necessarily generated in this discussion. But somehow I doubt believers separate out this area of their lives in the voting booth. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Not having physical reality is inherent to being a mystical being. Um yeah, whatever...There is no proof of any such being, and that would be my point. If your point is to bitch about an accidental redundancy in my language I guess I have but to wonder at the pleasure of such a small victory.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 4:00:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang I would say that very thing about every religious crackpot I have ever met - that they feed on misunderstandings and spout inaccurate information and falsehoods. You are undoubtedly correct in most of that. It is the consequence of the law of Murphy: when a human being can do something wrong, he usually will. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Ah, so now competing religious viewpoints - some of which are pointedly contradictory - are some kind of proof of the existence of a mystical being? Competing? Yes. But also complementary. Contradictory? That would be a paradox, wouldn't it? We already agreed on the causes of paradoxes. They are contradictory only to those who are subject to the law of Murphy. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Thousands of people can see the water in a mirage. It still doesn't make it actual water close up does it? Some people see water and it is water. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Neither does it help that you persist in clinging to the Old Testament notions about the Creator. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I hardly cling to it, I dismiss it outright. If you believe in an Abrahamic faith, it is you that cling to it - it is the cornerstone of your faith however much you may wish to distance yourself from it. I assume that it is a generic 'you' and that you are not refering to me specifically. Nevertheless it is you that keeps bringing up the concept of 'Abrahamic faiths'. So you may dismiss it, but that does not change the fact that you cling to the concept of Abrahamic faiths as your perception of what you call a mystical being. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Can there be a son if there is no father? That is a question of semantics. Jesus had no legitimate father. Mary was a virgin - i.e. her hymen was intact. If I recall correctly - I may be wrong - it says somewhere in one of the gospels that Joseph could not go into her. Though these facts have mundane explanations, they are theologically relevant - but that is an area that to you does not exist. Second century jews investigated the virgin birth of Jesus - to prove that it was a fraud - and determined that Mary had had intercourse with a Roman soldier by name of Panthera. Curiously, in the 19th or more probably 20th century in Switserland a first century tombstone of a Roman soldier called Pant(h)era was found. Theologically, whomever in fact begot Jesus is not relevant. Per my definition any child without a legitimate father and voluntarily conceived by its mother by definition is a child of the Creator. (Note that I specify a specific god and do not use the generic and ambiguous concept 'God'.) quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang It is a general concern, not a concern necessarily generated in this discussion. Ah. That removes the misunderstanding generated by your words 'that some of you'. You did not intend to generalize. So we may replace these words by the more specific words, accurately reflecting your intention, 'that some people'. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang But somehow I doubt believers separate out this area of their lives in the voting booth. Quite. But that does not pertain to the discussion in this thread, unless you want to change the subject. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Not having physical reality is inherent to being a mystical being. Um yeah, whatever...There is no proof of any such being, and that would be my point. If your point is to bitch about an accidental redundancy in my language I guess I have but to wonder at the pleasure of such a small victory. The point is that you demand a proof that is logically impossible. As logic depends on language, semanthics is essential to logic. To demand a proof that is logically impossible is not rational.

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 4:44:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Quite. But that does not pertain to the discussion in this thread, unless you want to change the subject. It is the subtext of my OP. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule The point is that you demand a proof that is logically impossible. No I don't. I am willing to accept any actual proof you may have of any being that could act in a hypothetical god capacity. Fire when ready, Gridley. My examples are classic proofs that the common Judaic and Christian concepts of god are not rational. You may say that the contradictions exist in how we think of god - but that's all we have of god, people thinking about the possibility of him without any physical foundation to their thoughts. To me this conversation has boiled down to something like this: ... Person A: I see the splendour of the universe and it makes me think that some people's conception of the cosmic infinite is quite puny. Person B: I see the wonders of nature and I see the work of the hand of god. Person A: I see planets and it makes me want to go there, to reach out and into the stars. Where do you see god? Person B: It's in everything. Even our thoughts indicate something beyond chance or natural occurrences. Person A: Yeah, but when I see a star or a planet that's what I see: stars and planets. Where do you see god? Person B: I can't explain it. My sense of it can't be analysed. But it's there. Can you accept irrational proof for the existence of god? Person B: [clucks his tongue like Daffy Duck]

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02