The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: God is NATURAL????

Re: God is NATURAL????
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Wednesday, March 7 2012, 15:16:01 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

>
>Thank you for dedicating some of your time and effort to spread the knowlege, truth and awareness over the internet.

...you can thank us for creating a site where people can actually say whatever they want without fear...for that we will indeed take credit...having provided the site it is nice when people actually say something worthwhile, but they donīt have to...I was just hoping......
>
> how is God a natural event? And how is a pig not? [b]
>
>Anything within the universe has a material cause or explanation.

...may have...but not necesarily at this moment...for many answers we will have to wait centuries maybe eons and then only if we keep religion from destroying our schools and education...it is only religion which said, 2000 years ago, that it KNEW...and his name was...and he did it like this....and he was this tall...and his hair color was....

Humans, for example, can be explained by the Darwinian model. If we go back 13.7 billion years, we find that the universe, as we know it (the observable universe that is), may not have existed. Therefore, A conscious prime mover is being invoked to explain the origin of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then it is possible that there was a creator.

...no prime mover is being invoked or is necessary...Darwin never said he had an answer for where life came from...he said there was evidence that a god didnīt create Zebras the way they existed in his day, that they EVOLVED...but he never speculated on where life came from or how, never...that is nonsense religious people spread to then prove "how Darwin failed to answer the question"...and therefor failed where religion succeeds...but religion doesnīt succeed at anything...it isnīt success when you manufacture answers from thin air, for from carnival tricks...if you canīt solve a complex peoblem you get no credit when you make one up. Science is not yet ready to explain the origin of the universe and relgion has NEVER answered that question....Adama nd Eve and Genesis are hardly ANSWERS..they are fables oure and simple, with no shred of evidence AND if you question any of it you get killed...or got killed.
>
>But as Anonymous (and Hawking) suggest, it is possible that the universe did not have a beginning, and therefore there is no need for a creator. If that is the case, then even if a supernatural being exist, there is no reason to revere him simply because he did not contribute anything to the creation of the universe (in other words, we will have existed with or without him)

...yes but he doesnīt exist...no matter where the universe came from or if it was here all along...there has never been one shred of evidence produced for the existence of Thorm Zeus, Isthar or your version....none. People have just grown accustomed, because force-fed as children, into believing that agod exists...but Iīve already shown you clearly that he doesnīt...even though the burden of proof isnīt on me...muat I remind you of the pigs on Mars? Because you canīt prove they DONīT exist, doesnīt mean they MIGHT...the burden of proof for any of the fantastic stroies you people believe is on YOU...and you have never been able to prove any of them...not one.
>
>A pig is within the universe. It can be explained by material causes that are within the universe. It vanishes when the universe vanish and it did not exist when the universe did not exist.
>
>[b] I asked you prove his existence
>
>I saw him yesterday. He sends you his regards. He also told me to tell you that he exist.

...I wonīt take Paulīs word for Jesus...I wonīt take the Old Testicles word for Moses...I wonīt take YOUR word for the pig...a salutation to me from him, through you, is not EVIDENCE...see, see how simple words and concepts get twisted round and made meaningless by religion? I said PROOF!
>
> >The Vietnam war is very recent. How about we go back further in time.
>
>...depends far back in time...depends on whether there are corroborating sources or only one witness..also depends on the evnt
>
>Exactly. Witnesses and written records are often our primary source for hitorical information.

...but not for religious claims...just as we donņt conside most of what Herodotus claims as history to be valid...because HE also took thr word of other people and we know now that they and he were wrong...Hitler wrote "history" too but is nonsense...just like what religion writes...the actual QUALITY and RELIABILITY of the text and authors matters...and religious writing is notoriously suspect and for good reason.
>
>Assume we found a hundred different documents (2,000 year old), each written with different hadwritings. In each document, the author asserts that he saw a miracle. Would you believe it? It could be a conspiracy.

...of course not. Hearsay evidence is not even accepted in a court of law where petty theft is involved...Iīm going to accept hearsay evidence for the CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE??? Or for someoneīs claim that someone else walked on water...thereby suspending NATURAL LAW? Come on be SERIOUS!
>
> if it is fantastical and goes against all we know of natural law, we have right to eb suspicious
>
>Suppose a miracle did actually happen, and you saw it. What then would be your reaction? Naturally, you will tell everyone. But what if you were asked to provide a proof? You would if you could. But how? You will never be able to prove it. People who are closest to you, who trust you, might believe you.

...which is more likely to you...that the sun actually stood still in the heavens, with all the chaos that would imply, or that I was MISTAKEN? No, I would not believe in a miracle even if I saw it...I donīt think that much of myself...I would behave as a rational being and assume I was mistaken...I certainly wouldnīt run around telling people...in this day and age especially,cause theyīd lock me up!
>
>What if several people saw it? Cross interrogation may help, but it is possible that you all agreed on the details of the story. Therefore, it is not a proof. One has to actually be there to witness the event first hand.

...mass hysteria is nothing new...especially when people are well-primed by these beliefs in the first place...people WANT see eviodence that their foolish is actually real.
>
>But even if you were there, you may doubt yourself. "What if I am schizophrenic?" you might say. "What if all this was in my head?". So even if a miracle did happen, there is no way to prove it, not even to yourself.

...yes but it DIDNīT happen, and never will...what is called miraculous in science simply means unbelieveable given the state of our current KNOWLEDGE...and knowledge is quantifiable, not like faith and miracles...knowledge can be tested objectively...religious claims canīt be.
>
>Which brings up the question: what is proof? How can we prove proof? We could be a brain in a vat. Senses are merely electic singnals within the brain. What if we are in the year 6,000 and everything we see and hear are being simulated by a computer?

...here you go again...ask a man a simple direct question and he gives you back floral arrangements...the question was simple....you say god exists, with no proof at all...I say pids exist on Mars, with no proof at all....how do you know which is true?
>
> it is natural to walk on water? When`s the last time you did it? Or saw it done?
>
>The question here is whether a creator exist or not. If he exist, then he, as a creator is able to defy the law he himself created. It is not natural for men to walk on water because they did not create the laws of nature, they are subject to it, and therefore they are not in control of it.

...no, that is NOT the question...it was settled already in the posts you refused to answer...we things exist by evidence, not hearsay,especially where it matters, where people have been killed for NOT believing hearsy evidence...since there is no evidence ever produced for the existence of a single god, it is safe to assume there are no such things...it isnīt a question any longer...unless you can prove they exist. But thereīs no basis for debate...the only thing worth discussing is what people do WHEN they believe, not if their beliefs are based on facts.
>
> you can`t tell the non-believer that HE must prove the NON-existence of Gods
>
>I have never challenged you to prove his non-existence. If I did, show me when.

...boring....
>
> don't think we don't notice that you are highly selective in which parts of which posts you answer
>
>What makes you think that I think that you don't notice? Some sentences summarize an entire idea or paragraph, so I select it. Sometimes I want to focus on certain ideas and leave the rest for later, and sometimes I simply have no comment or answer.

...handy. And do you think that EVERY word you utter is worthy of a response? And yet I do, because it would be rude as well as suspect if let some go without explaining WHY...which you have done now.

...you said no evience was valid or needed or possible for belief in God...I said in that case none was necessary for pigs on Mars or anything else! It is ALL true then...which is no way for an intellect to function...but go ahead.
>
> the burden of proof lies with those making fantastic claims
>
>Those who made the claim died thousands of years ago. I am simply believing it.

...then your burden is even greater...why then donīt you believe in Isis? If humans can pick and choose which gods to believe in and which parts of holy books, then itīs obvious these are all invented by those same humans...
>
> Your position is that since I can't "disprove" the existence of God, he MUST exist or MIGHT exist
>
>I never said that. Maybe someone said that to you before. Not me.

...you said that god MIGHT exist...I said that those PIGS might exist...what sort of rational basis is that on which to proceed...intelligently?
>
> which only goes to show you what God can do to your mind...and it ain't pretty.
>
>What did atheism do to people's minds? Are atheists more successful in life?

...at not being bestet by a series of bugaboos, yes, definitely.
>
> I think I'm justified in calling for an ambulance.
>
>Are you sure the doctors are not theists?

...theyīll be caring for you, so itīs your lookout.
>
> GENESIS is your idea of an explanation of how it got here "in the first place"?
>
>No. But here is what the Nobel laureate physicist, Arno Penzias, said about the origin of the universe: "the best data we have concerning the Big Bang, are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and bible as a whole".

...amd Sir Issac Newton,the greatest scientist of his age...a man famous all over Europe when such things were hard to achieve, believed in the Phlogiston theory...and conducted experiments his entire life to convert lead into gold....and believed in Astrology and a hundred other goofy and totally discredited ideas....your point?



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9