NationStates Jolt Archive

Well this could be one source of our misunderstanding. I don't take every word in the bible as literal. I contend that much of it is metaphorical. I believe there was a flood, I don't necessarily believe it covered the entire earth. I believe God created the universe, I don't necessarily believe it happened in 6 Earth days. I believe Satan tempted Eve, and I don't believe he looked like a snake.

Perhaps you are right about the first two... there is evidence of very local flooding that could correspond to a 'world wide' flood, and there is no reason that god couldn NOT have been the instigator of creation.

But the third point gives me trouble. Genesis says it was a serpent. The curse implies it was a serpent... even Jesus' having a moment of doubt before the crucifixion, reinforces the serpent imagery. The text is very clear on it beign a serpent, and doesn't mention 'satan' anywhere... until later authors wrote THEIR versions.

The Hebrew definition of serpent as Shining one fits my belief.

The Hebrew definition of serpent isn't 'shining one'... I suspect you have been misinformed, or have simply misunderstood.

The ROOT of the word Nachash (IF it is 'purely' Hebrew, and not borrowed from another culture) suggests shining qualities... that is not the same as saying that "serpent = shining one" in Hebrew.

I gave one example above, with the root of our modern word 'cupboard'...

What about Henchmen? You are familiar with the word, and it's rough meaning, no doubt? And yet, how often do you see James Bond contesting with Henchmen on horseback?

Ive had a similar discussion with my 2 housemates who do believe in God. I dont have any problem with anyone believing that God was the reason the 'ingredients' came together for the Big Bang etc etc.

But as Stephen Hawking asked in "A Brief History Of Time", what was he doing before all that?

If someone has religious beliefs, good luck to them. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell them they're wrong. But for me, as a physicist, I tend to go more for something that can at least prove a lot of its theories rather than having a blind faith in some 'omnipotent' being

What was God doing 'before' time came into existence? You do realize that 'before' can't be used if there is no time, yes? No time, no before. Got it? Good.

Thats ment to say after, my mistake. Thinking in terms of BC, backwards.

I knew what you meant. I was just giving you a hard time. And the statement would have still been incorrect if the time was in BC as even though the numbers went down, time still moved forward. ;)

Do you mean God cannot be measured or verified?

In a nutshell, yes. We have a number of possible theories to explain the origins of the universe that function quite happily without the necessity to add a supernatural intervention.

Why add into those theories, just to justify faith?

'God' cannot be measured, and there is no 'verification' of god that cannot be more logically explained by other arguments.

Not to say that god doesn't exist (although, as an Atheist, I'm seeing no real reason to suspect 'he' does)... just that there is NO objective way to measure or 'prove' that he/she/it does.

And, that being the case... why should sound theoretical work be distorted to accept an unverifiable value, that is not necessary in the equation?

In a nutshell, yes. We have a number of possible theories to explain the origins of the universe that function quite happily without the necessity to add a supernatural intervention.

Why add into those theories, just to justify faith?

'God' cannot be measured, and there is no 'verification' of god that cannot be more logically explained by other arguments.

Not to say that god doesn't exist (although, as an Atheist, I'm seeing no real reason to suspect 'he' does)... just that there is NO objective way to measure or 'prove' that he/she/it does.

And, that being the case... why should sound theoretical work be distorted to accept an unverifiable value, that is not necessary in the equation?

Last night, I saw God's work on a mass scale. It was a faith healing session. It...

Oh. Of course! These are just stories I'm cooking up. :rolleyes: Seeing is believing, but seeing through the eyes of a Christian trying to prove the existence of God casts a lot of doubt on the account.

And yet, why confuse matters, by adding in an EXTRA factor, that CANNOT be measured or verified?

Because of experience and I have faith that He is the ultimate truth behind the science. Anger and Love are unverifiable too but I've experienced both. I have faith they exist. I have experienced God in my life as well.

What was God doing 'before' time came into existence? You do realize that 'before' can't be used if there is no time, yes? No time, no before. Got it? Good.

There is a logical inconsistency, though...

Time started with the start of the universe, is a fair assessment, and a reasonable premise, of most origin theories.

Thus - nothing can happen 'before' the origin of the universe, because there was no 'before' UNTIL the origin of the universe.

The PROBLEM is:

If you accept that a 'god' existed that created the universe, that 'god' must have existed 'before' the universe... and thus the premise is altered... since our 'god' must have had some 'before' in which to create... and thus time cannot be strictly delineated to the origin point.

So - if there was some 'before' in which our infinite entity existed... what was 'he' doing in it, UNTIL he created the universe?

The logical answer being... nothing... since creating the universe was his first action, but then we have an arbitrary starting point for an 'infinite' being.

Exactly. The idea that because technology for mass media was not available to the Hebrews they simply couldn't have knowledge of the positions of these figures in their history is ridiculous at its core.

If the Hebrews were so known for their ability for accurate oral history, why is the bible so questionable to some? Why would only THAT history be false when all else they passed down is considered so accurate? Especially when archaeology has proven so much of it in recent times?

Because of experience and I have faith that He is the ultimate truth behind the science. Anger and Love are unverifiable too but I've experienced both. I have faith they exist. I have experienced God in my life as well.

I think GnI is only arguing that God should remain out of scientific theory. I don't think you are recommending it being included in scientific theory and, as such, I agree with both of you, in that it does not belong in scientific theory and that science does not negate God.

Also, anger and love are verifiable. They can be witnessed even by those who think they don't exist. Now, one might argue the form of them, but there is little doubt they exist.

The Hebrew definition of serpent isn't 'shining one'... I suspect you have been misinformed, or have simply misunderstood.

The ROOT of the word Nachash (IF it is 'purely' Hebrew, and not borrowed from another culture) suggests shining qualities... that is not the same as saying that "serpent = shining one" in Hebrew.

I gave one example above, with the root of our modern word 'cupboard'...

What about Henchmen? You are familiar with the word, and it's rough meaning, no doubt? And yet, how often do you see James Bond contesting with Henchmen on horseback?

This may be entirely right, but your example doesn't discount it either. You're giving me an example of what MIGHT contradict it, but not something that DOES.

Because of experience and I have faith that He is the ultimate truth behind the science. Anger and Love are unverifiable too but I've experienced both. I have faith they exist. I have experienced God in my life as well.

Your 'belief' is not something that can be calculated, though... so why attempt to modify the measurable and observable, with something un-measurable and un-observable?

Anger and Love are emotion responses. They are easily explained in terms of evolutionary necessity, and their 'footprint' is biological, and observable.

Are you implying that Anger could actually have been the prime origin? The universe may have somehow started because of 'anger'?

The difference between 'anger' and 'God' - is that one is an anthropomorphic entity, and the other is an emotion... one can be observed - the other one needs much more evidence to justify.

There is a logical inconsistency, though...

Time started with the start of the universe, is a fair assessment, and a reasonable premise, of most origin theories.

Thus - nothing can happen 'before' the origin of the universe, because there was no 'before' UNTIL the origin of the universe.

The PROBLEM is:

If you accept that a 'god' existed that created the universe, that 'god' must have existed 'before' the universe... and thus the premise is altered... since our 'god' must have had some 'before' in which to create... and thus time cannot be strictly delineated to the origin point.

So - if there was some 'before' in which our infinite entity existed... what was 'he' doing in it, UNTIL he created the universe?

The logical answer being... nothing... since creating the universe was his first action, but then we have an arbitrary starting point for an 'infinite' being.

Yes, but there is a starting point in terms of us (existing in time) and no starting point in terms of the infinite being (existing outside of time). Again, there was no 'before'. Our brains do not operate well when visualizing infinity or a lack of time. How can anything happen outside of time? Our brains can't really conceive of it. We also have difficulty with acausality. Even infinite numbers are difficult for us.

It's like this. Imagine we all go to heaven upon death. There is no time in heaven. I die today and you die five years from now. Try to describe our arrival in heaven and our reunion without using time. Do I arrive 'before' you? 'After' you? 'At the same time'? What has happened 'since' I died? Etc.

Your 'belief' is not something that can be calculated, though... so why attempt to modify the measurable and observable, with something un-measurable and un-observable?

Anger and Love are emotion responses. They are easily explained in terms of evolutionary necessity, and their 'footprint' is biological, and observable.

Are you implying that Anger could actually have been the prime origin? The universe may have somehow started because of 'anger'?

The difference between 'anger' and 'God' - is that one is an anthropomorphic entity, and the other is an emotion... one can be observed - the other one needs much more evidence to justify.


No, I'd be more apt to say the universe somehow started because of Love. Yes emotions can be observed, but can they be proven? You may "observe" me getting angry, but I could deny it and say you were mistaken or maybe it was a case of just cold blooded meanness that seemed like anger. You could never prove it either way. I contend that I've observed God, the fact that I can't prove this to someone else doesn't remove its truth.

Last night, I saw God's work on a mass scale. It was a faith healing session. It...

Oh. Of course! These are just stories I'm cooking up. :rolleyes: Seeing is believing, but seeing through the eyes of a Christian trying to prove the existence of God casts a lot of doubt on the account.

No need to get so defensive... you are, I think, missing my point.

I have also seen 'faith healing'... but 'faith healing' does not PROVE the existence of the OBJECT of faith... only the EFFECT of faith.

You saw a 'faith healing', and you ascribe the results of that event to verifiable proof of 'god'... but what if 'Satan' was the actual agent of healing? Or Allah? I have seen scientific research that has shown positive effects of 'faith', that seems to be entirely independent of the alleged 'god' of the faithful.

The problem with your witness testimony, ISN'T that you are Christian... but that you KNEW what you were going to believe BEFORE you even saw the events.

Is there any way you can 'verify' that the 'faith healing' you saw MUST have been a miraculous intervention of YOUR accepted god?

Is there any way you can 'measure' the amount of divine influence that was involved in the occassion?

If you are being truthful and objective, you MUST answer 'no' to both questions - and that is ALL I stated... that the 'effect' of (a) 'god' must be unverifiable, and immeasurable.

This may be entirely right, but your example doesn't discount it either. You're giving me an example of what MIGHT contradict it, but not something that DOES.

I don't understand what you mean - can you rephrase this?

It looks like you are saying that it is okay to accept the etymological root of a word, as being equal to the meaning of a word... despite the unknown 'birth' of that word, or the change in meaning through usage, over extended periods of time.

Is that your argument? Or am I totally missing it?

If the Hebrews were so known for their ability for accurate oral history, why is the bible so questionable to some? Why would only THAT history be false when all else they passed down is considered so accurate? Especially when archaeology has proven so much of it in recent times?

You are confusing the medium with the content.

Imagine: the 'first generation' says that "the moon is made of green cheese"; the 'hundredth generation' says that "the moon is made of green(ish) cheese"; and the 'thousandth generation' says that "the moon is made of a dairy-product, some colour akin to blue and yellow, mixed".

The oral tradition is pretty accurate, even though the original information may not have been entirely true.

Any history can be made up of true parts (like the name of the place where an event 'happened'), and false parts (like an exaggerated, or invented event, in that place).

Accurate retelling may preserve both elements, but the 'truth' of one element has no bearing on the 'truth' of the other element - even though the historical medium has remained 'accurate' with reference to preserving those details.

Example: archeologists find remains of a tower in Babylon (the place is 'true', and accurately recorded)... but that doesn't mean that 'god' really did 'confuse the tongues of all mankind' (even though the 'recording' was 'accurate'... that element might NOT have been true, even when first recorded).

I don't understand what you mean - can you rephrase this?

It looks like you are saying that it is okay to accept the etymological root of a word, as being equal to the meaning of a word... despite the unknown 'birth' of that word, or the change in meaning through usage, over extended periods of time.

Is that your argument? Or am I totally missing it?

yes, in some cases I say it is okay. It isn't equal but it can still hold truth. Elvis will forever be known as "The King" yet he hadn't a drop of royal blood. What will people think when they read about him in 2000 years?

No, I'd be more apt to say the universe somehow started because of Love. Yes emotions can be observed, but can they be proven? You may "observe" me getting angry, but I could deny it and say you were mistaken or maybe it was a case of just cold blooded meanness that seemed like anger. You could never prove it either way. I contend that I've observed God, the fact that I can't prove this to someone else doesn't remove its truth.

But, you CAN measure physical/biological factors of anger. You can record actual differences in the body, as 'anger' occurs.

There is NO such 'evidence' for 'god'.... certainly not for any ONE god.

The fact that you believe 'god' to be existent, doesn't make it true.

You are confusing the medium with the content.

Imagine: the 'first generation' says that "the moon is made of green cheese"; the 'hundredth generation' says that "the moon is made of green(ish) cheese"; and the 'thousandth generation' says that "the moon is made of a dairy-product, some colour akin to blue and yellow, mixed".

The oral tradition is pretty accurate, even though the original information may not have been entirely true.

Any history can be made up of true parts (like the name of the place where an event 'happened'), and false parts (like an exaggerated, or invented event, in that place).

Accurate retelling may preserve both elements, but the 'truth' of one element has no bearing on the 'truth' of the other element - even though the historical medium has remained 'accurate' with reference to preserving those details.

Example: archeologists find remains of a tower in Babylon (the place is 'true', and accurately recorded)... but that doesn't mean that 'god' really did 'confuse the tongues of all mankind' (even though the 'recording' was 'accurate'... that element might NOT have been true, even when first recorded).

Ok I see what you're saying. I can go along with that.

let me ask you this, how do we really know that Pilate existed? How do we know the Romans occupied Jerusalem? If there is no verifiable truth that Jesus walked the Earth and was crucified what have we got that verifies any of it?

yes, in some cases I say it is okay. It isn't equal but it can still hold truth. Elvis will forever be known as "The King" yet he hadn't a drop of royal blood. What will people think when they read about him in 2000 years?

You are admitting that etymology has no AUTOMATIC logical connection to the received 'meaning' of a word.

Thus, it must be clear to you that, just because the etymology of Nachash in Hebrew, MAY have drawn a line from a 'shining' reference (or may NOT, there is no good reason to believe Nachash originated in the Hebrew language), the word may not have ANY connection to shining things?

Surely, you would need evidence to make the assumption, therefore, that the latter word has ANY significant connection to the former?

Looking at the evolution of language, I would say it is a very rare thing to keep ANY real trace of the 'meaning' of a word, over time. I certainly don't hold that you can speculatively reassign a serpent as anything OTHER than a serpent, JUST because the theoretical etymology of the word is vague.

You are confusing the medium with the content.

Imagine: the 'first generation' says that "the moon is made of green cheese"; the 'hundredth generation' says that "the moon is made of green(ish) cheese"; and the 'thousandth generation' says that "the moon is made of a dairy-product, some colour akin to blue and yellow, mixed".

The oral tradition is pretty accurate, even though the original information may not have been entirely true.

Any history can be made up of true parts (like the name of the place where an event 'happened'), and false parts (like an exaggerated, or invented event, in that place).

Accurate retelling may preserve both elements, but the 'truth' of one element has no bearing on the 'truth' of the other element - even though the historical medium has remained 'accurate' with reference to preserving those details.

Example: archeologists find remains of a tower in Babylon (the place is 'true', and accurately recorded)... but that doesn't mean that 'god' really did 'confuse the tongues of all mankind' (even though the 'recording' was 'accurate'... that element might NOT have been true, even when first recorded).
Perhaps it would help if we took a different perspective of this explaination, since this has turned into an Atheism/Agnosticism vs. Christianity arguement, and Christians are quite often offended by the mere thought that another religion might be right.

I find that the basis of religion is actually an effort to explain the unknown. If you take some of the stories of certain religions, they will offer up explainations as ludicrous as spiders evolving from a weaving woman who was better than a goddess. Just because spiders exist, does nothing to prove that this is indeed the reason why they exist. To be honest, I have no reason to believe that Christian ideas are any less ludicrous than those of ancient Greece.

In fact, the American tall tales could have been the basis of a religion. However, America was already established as a "Christian nation".

Ok I see what you're saying. I can go along with that.

let me ask you this, how do we really know that Pilate existed? How do we know the Romans occupied Jerusalem? If there is no verifiable truth that Jesus walked the Earth and was crucified what have we got that verifies any of it?

Try looking at this through the perspective we have been trying to tell you. Ok, so they have proven that there was indeed a man named Jesus who was crucified, but just because he existed, doesn't mean he had divine power, ever raised the dead, came back from the dead, or was the son of god.

You are admitting that etymology has no AUTOMATIC logical connection to the received 'meaning' of a word.

Thus, it must be clear to you that, just because the etymology of Nachash in Hebrew, MAY have drawn a line from a 'shining' reference (or may NOT, there is no good reason to believe Nachash originated in the Hebrew language), the word may not have ANY connection to shining things?

Surely, you would need evidence to make the assumption, therefore, that the latter word has ANY significant connection to the former?

Looking at the evolution of language, I would say it is a very rare thing to keep ANY real trace of the 'meaning' of a word, over time. I certainly don't hold that you can speculatively reassign a serpent as anything OTHER than a serpent, JUST because the theoretical etymology of the word is vague.

just like in 2000 years, you can't speculatively reassign a king as anything other than a king...except when talking about Elvis. The meaning of a word was relevant at the origin of the word. Do you agree? Do we know how old the Hebrew word for serpent is? We're not talking about the word "serpent". We're talking about a word that has been translated to mean serpent. There could easily be people in the past who used it according to an original meaning. There are 4 different words that meant love. Today, they've all been discarded and are replaced with love. Does that mean that when speaking of love in the distant path, the 4 meanings were not valid?

But, you CAN measure physical/biological factors of anger. You can record actual differences in the body, as 'anger' occurs.

There is NO such 'evidence' for 'god'.... certainly not for any ONE god.

The fact that you believe 'god' to be existent, doesn't make it true.

As for the argument with emotions and god. Emotions are proven to exist, they are actual reactions in the brain. So, there is proof that this idea of anger actually does exist.

Yes, but there is a starting point in terms of us (existing in time) and no starting point in terms of the infinite being (existing outside of time). Again, there was no 'before'. Our brains do not operate well when visualizing infinity or a lack of time. How can anything happen outside of time? Our brains can't really conceive of it. We also have difficulty with acausality. Even infinite numbers are difficult for us.

It's like this. Imagine we all go to heaven upon death. There is no time in heaven. I die today and you die five years from now. Try to describe our arrival in heaven and our reunion without using time. Do I arrive 'before' you? 'After' you? 'At the same time'? What has happened 'since' I died? Etc.

I have no problems dealing with eternity, but I do not see any reason to assume that 'infinite' equates to 'outside of time'... in fact, quite the opposite - time MUST be the definition of 'eternal', or else it is a meaningless concept.

If God is eternal, he must exist for all eternity, and eternity (while not having rational end-points) still circumlocutes a conceivable 'area'... which is defined by time. If god exists BEFORE the universe, then time must exist BEFORE the universe.

If god existed 'outside of time', then he is not eternal - he is not 'of' time at all. And the problem with THAT is, if you aren't affected BY time, then you can have no effect ON time.... so the 'outside of time' god is not only NOT-omnipotent, but actually totally IMPOTENT.

just like in 2000 years, you can't speculatively reassign a king as anything other than a king...except when talking about Elvis. The meaning of a word was relevant at the origin of the word. Do you agree? Do we know how old the Hebrew word for serpent is? We're not talking about the word "serpent". We're talking about a word that has been translated to mean serpent. There could easily be people in the past who used it according to an original meaning. There are 4 different words that meant love. Today, they've all been discarded and are replaced with love. Does that mean that when speaking of love in the distant path, the 4 meanings were not valid?

The point isn't that the original meanings were never valid, the point is that the current meaning is the one that is valid for the present. Therefore, a king was the ruler of a land. The king of today which refers to Elvis is the more general meaning that the word has taken on: "being the best in a field".

If god existed 'outside of time', then he is not eternal - he is not 'of' time at all. And the problem with THAT is, if you aren't affected BY time, then you can have no effect ON time.... so the 'outside of time' god is not only NOT-omnipotent, but actually totally IMPOTENT.


What leads you to believe that not being affected by something prevents you from having an effect on it?

The point isn't that the original meanings were never valid, the point is that the current meaning is the one that is valid for the present. Therefore, a king was the ruler of a land. The king of today which refers to Elvis is the more general meaning that the word has taken on: "being the best in a field".

yes but whoever wrote about the serpent THEN isn't using what the meaning of the word is TODAY. If the writer used the word attached to its original meaning THEN, we can't discount it NOW because we no longer use that word that way. How they used their language when they were using it is how we have to interpret it. G-n-I has a point that there is no AUTOMATIC association, but a lack of Automatic association does not remove possible association. If the word EVER meant shining one, then at ANY point in history, it could have been used that way. The web links I provided told me that at some point, this is the case. Why should I believe otherwise just because today it means something else?

yes but whoever wrote about the serpent THEN isn't using what the meaning of the word is TODAY. If the writer used the word attached to its original meaning THEN, we can't discount it NOW because we no longer use that word that way. How they used their language when they were using it is how we have to interpret it. G-n-I has a point that there is no AUTOMATIC association, but a lack of Automatic association does not remove possible association. If the word EVER meant shining one, then at ANY point in history, it could have been used that way. The web links I provided told me that at some point, this is the case. Why should I believe otherwise just because today it means something else?

I am not refering to what it means today. I am simply stating that even though it meant shining one at some point in the past, you must look at what the current meaning of the word was for when the reference of use is. I.E. had the meaning already evolved by the time it was used in that sense?

I am not refering to what it means today. I am simply stating that even though it meant shining one at some point in the past, you must look at what the current meaning of the word was for when the reference of use is. I.E. had the meaning already evolved by the time it was used in that sense?

And since we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing what the current meaning at the time was, we have to allow that any meaning in the word's history COULD be legitimate. From there you have to go by context.

I have no problems dealing with eternity, but I do not see any reason to assume that 'infinite' equates to 'outside of time'... in fact, quite the opposite - time MUST be the definition of 'eternal', or else it is a meaningless concept.

If God is eternal, he must exist for all eternity, and eternity (while not having rational end-points) still circumlocutes a conceivable 'area'... which is defined by time. If god exists BEFORE the universe, then time must exist BEFORE the universe.

If god existed 'outside of time', then he is not eternal - he is not 'of' time at all. And the problem with THAT is, if you aren't affected BY time, then you can have no effect ON time.... so the 'outside of time' god is not only NOT-omnipotent, but actually totally IMPOTENT.

Eternal is expression from a bunch of beings existing within time. As far as we are concerned God is eternal. He existed when time began and will exist until it ends. This does not make Him bound by time. The fact that He has the ability to exist within the universe and the time which defines the universe does not bind Him to time even if you wish for it to. That he is not BOUND by time does not mean he can have no effect on time. This is another case of our time-bound minds trying understanding that which has no such binding. NOTE: Many consider him omni-present as well. This says nothing about His existence being bound by space. /Note

I will, however, accept your telling that a God not bound by time may not effect it with supporting evidence that you base this on. I accept that my concept of God was intended by that same God to make sense within the context of observable evidence. However, I am NOT bound by your personal philosophies. So if you can show me what observable evidence we have of the limited abilities of a being that is not bound by the laws of our universe, including time, I will factor them into my concept of God.

And since we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing what the current meaning at the time was, we have to allow that any meaning in the word's history COULD be legitimate. From there you have to go by context.

Any meaning in the word's history from the perspective of the text its used in. You can only incorporate uses from PRIOR to the writing of the text. What evidence from BEFORE the writing of the Old Testament are you presenting?

What leads you to believe that not being affected by something prevents you from having an effect on it?
It's not just "something" we are talking about, it is time, which is inseperable (but still distinct) from space, which, along with energy-matter, defines our physical reality.

I believe the reasoning goes something like this: there are two kinds of things, material (real) things and immaterial (unreal) things. The immaterial things are generally what goes on "in our head," although it seems also to be an argument of some Christians for the nature of God. Only material things can affect material things; immaterial things have no effect on the material. For instance, we cannot dislike someone and kill them by our hatred; we cannot imagine being on Mars and find ourselves there. In order for God to affect things in physical reality, he must become material. Otherwise, for the immaterial to affect the material world is "magic" (i.e. an unknown, perhaps unknowable cause).

It's not just "something" we are talking about, it is time, which is inseperable (but still distinct) from space, which, along with energy-matter, defines our physical reality.

I believe the reasoning goes something like this: there are two kinds of things, material (real) things and immaterial (unreal) things. The immaterial things are generally what goes on "in our head," although it seems also to be an argument of some Christians for the nature of God. Only material things can affect material things; immaterial things have no effect on the material. For instance, we cannot dislike someone and kill them by our hatred; we cannot imagine being on Mars and find ourselves there. In order for God to affect things in physical reality, he must become material. Otherwise, for the immaterial to affect the material world is "magic" (i.e. an unknown, perhaps unknowable cause).

So basically that makes the argument, God is not omnipotent, because I have declared it so. We know of nothing that is unbound by time, yet we have declared the limitations it must have. You example of the mind is spurious, since it's debatable that it's immaterial and it's also obvious that it affects things that are material. I think of my arm moving to flick you in the nose. I 'tell' my arm to move to flick you in the nose. My arm moves to flick you in the nose. You get annoyed because I flicked your nose. Apparently, that's "magic".

Any meaning in the word's history from the perspective of the text its used in. You can only incorporate uses from PRIOR to the writing of the text. What evidence from BEFORE the writing of the Old Testament are you presenting?

it doesn't have to be before, it can be contemporary to the writing as well. When its written, it has to have a meaning, but we can use other writing OF THE TIME to decipher that meaning. I'm not presenting any evidence one way or the other. I was asked to show where I got my idea of the serpent being something other than a snake. I provided 3 links that supported my ideas. I have no way of knowing they are true and correct but I've not yet been convinced they are not. All these rules about what we can and cannot determine or use or infer or whatever else seem arbitrary to me and havn't proven anything either way.

it doesn't have to be before, it can be contemporary to the writing as well. When its written, it has to have a meaning, but we can use other writing OF THE TIME to decipher that meaning. I'm not presenting any evidence one way or the other. I was asked to show where I got my idea of the serpent being something other than a snake. I provided 3 links that supported my ideas. I have no way of knowing they are true and correct but I've not yet been convinced they are not. All these rules about what we can and cannot determine or use or infer or whatever else seem arbitrary to me and havn't proven anything either way.

Of course, contemporary to the piece would also be an acceptable reference. The links you provided established it was Satan based on works from LONG AFTER the writing of the old testament and certainly long after the first tellings of the Genesis. A more reliable source would limit itself to prior and contemporary pieces. If your argument is valid there should be some source that limits itself in such a way.

It's not just "something" we are talking about, it is time, which is inseperable (but still distinct) from space, which, along with energy-matter, defines our physical reality.

I believe the reasoning goes something like this: there are two kinds of things, material (real) things and immaterial (unreal) things. The immaterial things are generally what goes on "in our head," although it seems also to be an argument of some Christians for the nature of God. Only material things can affect material things; immaterial things have no effect on the material. For instance, we cannot dislike someone and kill them by our hatred; we cannot imagine being on Mars and find ourselves there. In order for God to affect things in physical reality, he must become material. Otherwise, for the immaterial to affect the material world is "magic" (i.e. an unknown, perhaps unknowable cause).

this is, of course, assuming that we know all the laws concerning such things.

Of course, contemporary to the piece would also be an acceptable reference. The links you provided established it was Satan based on works from LONG AFTER the writing of the old testament and certainly long after the first tellings of the Genesis. A more reliable source would limit itself to prior and contemporary pieces. If your argument is valid there should be some source that limits itself in such a way.

Its not likely that Eve would've known about Satan. It is however conceivable that she would describe him as shining if that happened to be a valid description of him. Whatever word that would have been back then. Generations later, when Genesis was being written, the writer used the contemporary word for the old word for shining used in the telling.

Of course, contemporary to the piece would also be an acceptable reference. The links you provided established it was Satan based on works from LONG AFTER the writing of the old testament and certainly long after the first tellings of the Genesis. A more reliable source would limit itself to prior and contemporary pieces. If your argument is valid there should be some source that limits itself in such a way.

If the piece was written LONG AFTER the writing of the old testament and long after the tellings of Genesis, then isn't it performing as you're asking? Isn't it referring to prior tellings and writings of the story at hand?

Its not likely that Eve would've known about Satan. It is however conceivable that she would describe him as shining if that happened to be a valid description of him. Whatever word that would have been back then. Generations later, when Genesis was being written, the writer used the contemporary word for the old word for shining used in the telling.

But you haven't supported this. You have not shown that the word was the contemporary word for 'shining'. You've only tried to show it is somehow linked to a word that is similar, but your evidence is only that they appear to be similar. You haven't shown any support for them actually being related. By the same argument, America is related to the name Erica. I doubt anyone would accept this without a little bit of supporting evidence.

But you haven't supported this. You have not shown that the word was the contemporary word for 'shining'. You've only tried to show it is somehow linked to a word that is similar, but your evidence is only that they appear to be similar. You haven't shown any support for them actually being related. By the same argument, America is related to the name Erica. I doubt anyone would accept this without a little bit of supporting evidence.


Then maybe I've missed something crucial here. I thought it was the SAME word

If the piece was written LONG AFTER the writing of the old testament and long after the tellings of Genesis, then isn't it performing as you're asking? Isn't it referring to prior tellings and writings of the story at hand?

It is using the evolved definition of the word for the time the NEW piece was written. This offers nothing to the meaning of the word when Genesis was first told or when the Old Testament was written. If someone used the word 'jazz' one thousand years ago obviously today's meaning of jazz as a form of music considered to be native to America wasn't the meaning. Today's usage does not describe the usage of 1000 years ago.

EDIT: Particularly if the new meaning of the word is based on the same spurious explanation of an allegory that we're arguing against.

It is using the evolved definition of the word for the time the NEW piece was written. This offers nothing to the meaning of the word when Genesis was first told or when the Old Testament was written. If someone used the word 'jazz' one thousand years ago obviously today's meaning of jazz as a form of music considered to be native to America wasn't the meaning. Today's usage does not describe the usage of 1000 years ago.

EDIT: Particularly if the new meaning of the word is based on the same spurious explanation of an allegory that we're arguing against.

Ok, ok. So what is preventing the particular word from actually being passed down as-is in the continuous retelling? How do we know, this meaning wasn't present when the story was first told and just stayed there in all the retellings? Have we covered that one yet? Cause I'm still really confused.

this is, of course, assuming that we know all the laws concerning such things.
Actually, no, it assumes that we know enough.

Actually, no, it assumes that we know enough.

I reject that. I don't see how there's any way we can assume such a thing.

So basically that makes the argument, God is not omnipotent, because I have declared it so. We know of nothing that is unbound by time, yet we have declared the limitations it must have. You example of the mind is spurious, since it's debatable that it's immaterial and it's also obvious that it affects things that are material. I think of my arm moving to flick you in the nose. I 'tell' my arm to move to flick you in the nose. My arm moves to flick you in the nose. You get annoyed because I flicked your nose. Apparently, that's "magic".
I never once said that the immaterial affects the material. If you got that from what I said, you misunderstood what I said.

Ok, ok. So what is preventing the particular word from actually being passed down as-is in the continuous retelling? How do we know, this meaning wasn't present when the story was first told and just stayed there in all the retellings? Have we covered that one yet? Cause I'm still really confused.

The point is that it is supported with LATER texts. This is a logical error. As you pointed out, it should be supported by EARLIER or CONTEMPORARY texts.

Add more to this... your texts mention that Nachash was used to mean serpent in the story of Moses (where Moses puts the serpent on the staff). We also have the context of this creature which just 'happens' to be reference by a word that means serpent being cursed to spent eternity on its belly, eating of the dust. It also compared to livestock and wild animals. This is a strange reaction by God regarding an ANGEL, don't you think? Also, you have the fact that the staff of Aaron becomes Nachash (a serpent) and swallows up the 'tannin' of the Pharaoh's sorcerers. Don't you find it strange that it is used in contemporary texts to mean serpent, literally serpent, and it just so happens that the curse makes the 'creature' into a serpent? I think your sources do very little to address these points.

So the only comparison your first source shows where Nachash is made to Satan is the New Testament. And that sources STREEEETCHES the truth badly.

"The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2 Cor. 11.3) is spoken of as “an angel of light” in v.14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? "

2 Corinthians 11:1-15 1I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 2I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

As you can see in the actual text, they are not talking about the serpent being Satan but comparing the tempting of Eve by a literal serpent to the current temptations of man by Satan. The fact the two are so clearly delineated suggests they are not the same thing. In fact, this comparison explains why, in the New Testament, Satan starts to be called the serpent and the dragon (Nachash and Tannin).

I never once said that the immaterial affects the material. If you got that from what I said, you misunderstood what I said.

No, you actually said that immaterial CANNOT affect the material and then you said the mind is immaterial and then suggested the mind has no effect on the world. I beg to differ. The mind directly affects the material world so it either is an example of the immateral affecting the material or the mind is not immaterial. I suggest it is the latter, but either way it negates your point, as you said the immaterial cannot affect the material and used the mind as your proof.

Then maybe I've missed something crucial here. I thought it was the SAME word

My research (admittedly not as thorough as it could be) suggests this -

Nehush - to shine
Nachash - serpent, to hiss, to enchant

It gets confusing because the brazen 'serpent' (many believed it was a dragon as their was a popular dragon myth at the time) is called the nehushtan (brass one) because it is made of brass, as are brass coins (nehushta). It is likely the Nehush is referencing the brass and not the serpent, in these cases. This is why it is particularly confusing.

http://www.cwru.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/encyl_biblica_a-d/coverlet-cyrus.pdf

No, you actually said that immaterial CANNOT affect the material and then you said the mind is immaterial and then suggested the mind has no effect on the world. I beg to differ. The mind directly affects the material world so it either is an example of the immateral affecting the material or the mind is not immaterial. I suggest it is the latter, but either way it negates your point, as you said the immaterial cannot affect the material and used the mind as your proof.
I did not use the mind as any "proof" that the immaterial can or cannot affect the material world. The subject of proof never even came up.

I reject that. I don't see how there's any way we can assume such a thing.
That is the position of the scientist, too. We do not know all there is to know; but, at the same time, we work with what we do know.

If the piece was written LONG AFTER the writing of the old testament and long after the tellings of Genesis, then isn't it performing as you're asking? Isn't it referring to prior tellings and writings of the story at hand?

The piece written long after is only showing that at that point they believed it to mean what they are suggesting. It does not show that it meant that at the time the older piece was written. If I wrote a piece that referenced the bible and also used the word 'bad' like we used it in the 80's and 90's to mean 'cool', would that mean that it was meant that way in the bible and every reference to bad things men and women do would mean cool things?

That is the position of the scientist, too. We do not know all there is to know; but, at the same time, we work with what we do know.

The position of the scientist posits NOTHING about that which is unbound by time or space. It posits NOTHING about the 'immaterial' as you defined it. It posits NOTHING about the restrictions to God's ability to be unbound by time but still have the capability to affect it. The original point was that God could not exist outside of time and still affect it and no scientist would claim that restricting the definition of God in this way is in any way scientific.

I have no problems dealing with eternity, but I do not see any reason to assume that 'infinite' equates to 'outside of time'... in fact, quite the opposite - time MUST be the definition of 'eternal', or else it is a meaningless concept.

If God is eternal, he must exist for all eternity, and eternity (while not having rational end-points) still circumlocutes a conceivable 'area'... which is defined by time. If god exists BEFORE the universe, then time must exist BEFORE the universe.

If god existed 'outside of time', then he is not eternal - he is not 'of' time at all. And the problem with THAT is, if you aren't affected BY time, then you can have no effect ON time.... so the 'outside of time' god is not only NOT-omnipotent, but actually totally IMPOTENT.

What leads you to believe that not being affected by something prevents you from having an effect on it?

It's not just "something" we are talking about, it is time, which is inseperable (but still distinct) from space, which, along with energy-matter, defines our physical reality.

I believe the reasoning goes something like this: there are two kinds of things, material (real) things and immaterial (unreal) things. The immaterial things are generally what goes on "in our head," although it seems also to be an argument of some Christians for the nature of God. Only material things can affect material things; immaterial things have no effect on the material. For instance, we cannot dislike someone and kill them by our hatred; we cannot imagine being on Mars and find ourselves there. In order for God to affect things in physical reality, he must become material. Otherwise, for the immaterial to affect the material world is "magic" (i.e. an unknown, perhaps unknowable cause).

The position of the scientist posits NOTHING about that which is unbound by time or space. It posits NOTHING about the 'immaterial' as you defined it. It posits NOTHING about the restrictions to God's ability to be unbound by time but still have the capability to affect it. The original point was that God could not exist outside of time and still affect it and no scientist would claim that restricting the definition of God in this way is in any way scientific.
This is true; science deals with the material, philosophy with the immaterial.

Science makes no theories about God, only about what we do know.

This is true; science deals with the material, philosophy with the immaterial.

Science makes no theories about God, only about what we do know.

Yes, but GnI limited our version of God while there is not logical or supportable reason to do so. You claimed to support GnI's view with an example that was debatable in it's definition of the mind and incorrect on the limitations of the mind's effects on the material.

Yes, but GnI limited our version of God while there is not logical or supportable reason to do so. You claimed to support GnI's view with an example that was debatable in it's definition of the mind and incorrect on the limitations of the mind's effects on the material.
I made no claims to support GnI's view, in the sense that I agree with it, just to explain the argument GnI referenced in metaphysical terms. We have yet to hear from him whether or not it is the reasoning he was thinking of.

The piece written long after is only showing that at that point they believed it to mean what they are suggesting. It does not show that it meant that at the time the older piece was written. If I wrote a piece that referenced the bible and also used the word 'bad' like we used it in the 80's and 90's to mean 'cool', would that mean that it was meant that way in the bible and every reference to bad things men and women do would mean cool things?


Ok you're convincing me, but either I'm a little slow or... well.

If you wrote a piece that referenced the bible and also used the word "bad", but you were retelling a piece that already used the word "bad" the way it was used in the past you wouldn't be using it to mean the contemporary meaning, you'd be retelling using the original meaning. If the old story used was told using the word dinglehopper (which meant green in the past) and you were retelling the same story and used the same word only now it meant french fries, if you used the word you wouldn't be changing the meaning to french fries, you'd be retelling the story and it would still mean green.

Ok you're convincing me, but either I'm a little slow or... well.

If you wrote a piece that referenced the bible and also used the word "bad", but you were retelling a piece that already used the word "bad" the way it was used in the past you wouldn't be using it to mean the contemporary meaning, you'd be retelling using the original meaning.

Or the meaning I thought it had (a thousand years later). You're assuming they didn't have as much potential for using it incorrectly as anyone else.

If the old story used was told using the word dinglehopper (which meant green in the past) and you were retelling the same story and used the same word only now it meant french fries, if you used the word you wouldn't be changing the meaning to french fries, you'd be retelling the story and it would still mean green.

Assuming I realize it means green... I might try to restrict myself to the old meaning.

Or the meaning I thought it had (a thousand years later). You're assuming they didn't have as much potential for using it incorrectly as anyone else.

well there you go. they're supposedly incredible at reciting oral history.




Assuming I realize it means green... I might try to restrict myself to the old meaning.

If the story is passed down with discipline, and you're in the business of passing the story further, I'd think it reasonable to assume the story teller would know the meanings of the words and not get influenced by newer meanings.

well there you go. they're supposedly incredible at reciting oral history.

We were arguing they were as accurate as we are with a written history. However, with our written history, we seem to have some difficulty. Why wouldn't they? Our friend was arguing earlier that due to a lack of technology they didn't have any knowledge of history.

If the story is passed down with discipline, and you're in the business of passing the story further, I'd think it reasonable to assume the story teller would know the meanings of the words and not get influenced by newer meanings.

This assumes that I have none of my own purposes in the storytelling. Jews would definitely argue that Christians had an interest in changing the meaning of some of the things that can be found in the Old Testament. That in and of itself makes it an unrealiable source for accuracy of the language.

Yes, but GnI limited our version of God while there is not logical or supportable reason to do so. You claimed to support GnI's view with an example that was debatable in it's definition of the mind and incorrect on the limitations of the mind's effects on the material.

I haven't done anything to limit any view of 'god'... All I have done is discuss the nonsensical nature of theory that allows for a "non-event mass with a quantum probability of zero" to interact with causality.

There is no logical or supportable reason to ALLOW a non-causality body to interact with causality, so mine isn't the unreasonable approach... the argument to the contrary is the one that would need to provide better support.

Depends on what you mean by "the supernatural". Do you realise that the mind is supernatural?


Dude, shut the hell up.

Ok you're convincing me, but either I'm a little slow or... well.

If you wrote a piece that referenced the bible and also used the word "bad", but you were retelling a piece that already used the word "bad" the way it was used in the past you wouldn't be using it to mean the contemporary meaning, you'd be retelling using the original meaning. If the old story used was told using the word dinglehopper (which meant green in the past) and you were retelling the same story and used the same word only now it meant french fries, if you used the word you wouldn't be changing the meaning to french fries, you'd be retelling the story and it would still mean green.

Of course, the phrase 'french fries' is a corruption of 'frenched fries'... so, once again.. the original meaning has been lost...

The important thing is, your word would only STILL mean the same thing, IF the word still meant the same thing (as obvious as that sounds).

If you only ASSUME that the word 'dinglehopper' meant "green" in the past, what does that say about the modern usage of the word? Or of other words adapted from it?

The case in point was the Hebrew Nachash - which might NOT have been Hebrew to start with... we only have SPECULATION about it's origins, based on probable etymology ASSUMING it was of Hebrew origin.

We encounter similar circumstances throughout the Bible... Moses being a classic example. We ASSUME that Moses is a Hebrew name (from Moseus - meaning "drawing out"... a reference to the origin story?)... but it is more LIKELY that Moses would have born an Egyptian name, since he was named by his adopted parents, who were NOT Hebrews. In those circumstances, "Moses" is likely ACTUALLY drawn from Egyptian etymology, from "m'ses" - basically meaning "born".

I haven't done anything to limit any view of 'god'... All I have done is discuss the nonsensical nature of theory that allows for a "non-event mass with a quantum probability of zero" to interact with causality.

There is no logical or supportable reason to ALLOW a non-causality body to interact with causality, so mine isn't the unreasonable approach... the argument to the contrary is the one that would need to provide better support.

You don't believe that an omnipotent and omniscient being exists, but if it does, it must conform to your standards. Forgive me if I don't adhere to said belief. I've been sort of working myself up to it by not agreeing with you about the existence of God first. It was good practice with not agreeing with you on the rest of this.

More importantly, you have no knowledge of whether any being exists that is not bound by time or not or any knowledge on which to base your claims of its/their ability to interact with us time-bound creatures.

The position of the scientist posits NOTHING about that which is unbound by time or space. It posits NOTHING about the 'immaterial' as you defined it. It posits NOTHING about the restrictions to God's ability to be unbound by time but still have the capability to affect it. The original point was that God could not exist outside of time and still affect it and no scientist would claim that restricting the definition of God in this way is in any way scientific.

The position of the scientist posits nothing about that which is unbound by time and space - but you must see why that is? Science can ONLY deal with what is observable, measurable, verifiable.

God has no scientific value (I don't mean it is worthless, just that it cannot be assigned a quantity), due to the alleged non-scientific manner of his/her existence.

You miss my point, though... the original point was NOT that "God could not exist outside of time and still affect it"... because THAT is a theo-centric viewpoint which requires a non-scientific assumption in the base theory.

The original point was that the material, causality-governed, reality CAN ONLY be affected by causality-governed stimuli. Something that exists outside of causality cannot be a cause WITHIN causality, and thus cannot have an effect.

Either: the entity exists within causality, in which case it CAN affect causality, but is limited by the scope of the causative reality, or:

the entity exists outside of causality, in which case it cannot participate in a causative process.

Personally, I just dont care about religion in most respects.

I think that Jesus was a cool guy and spread the right message of peace and love, but Christianity in general and the Catholic church specifically were formed to take advantage of all that. I believe that all major religions have become so corrupt and have deviated so far from the good messages that were originally their basis that they give a bad name to all religion. For example, the catholic church's homophobia isn't 'loving thy neighbor', It's just using an organization that was originally about love and peace and harmony and all the good stuff as a way to discriminate against and degrade a group that did them no wrong.

And I'm not even going to start on how much war, death, and destruction religion has caused.

You don't believe that an omnipotent and omniscient being exists, but if it does, it must conform to your standards. Forgive me if I don't adhere to said belief. I've been sort of working myself up to it by not agreeing with you about the existence of God first. It was good practice with not agreeing with you on the rest of this.

More importantly, you have no knowledge of whether any being exists that is not bound by time or not or any knowledge on which to base your claims of its/their ability to interact with us time-bound creatures.

It's not about my standards... and I am quite happy for you to disagree with ANYTHING I say. :)

But, you will have to check your logic-baggage before boarding that flight... because you are going to have to venture into non-logic territory in order to make it work.

A quick example: Our 'god' entity intrudes in our cause-and-effect space. For some small (or large) area of effect, we have ONE of TWO things:

1) A cause-and-effect entity, which exists WITHIN the constraints of reality, at least partially.

2) A non-causative entity, which exists totally WITHOUT the constraints of reality.

If our entity exists partially WITHIN (or entirely within) cause-and-effect reality, it can interfere with cause-and-effect.... it can intervene, and have an effect. However, since it is 'within' our cause-and-effect reality, it is at least PARTIALLY governed BY cause-and-effect... so, one action 'follows' another for this entity (which matches the Biblical description of 'god')... which means the entity experiences reality THROUGH cause-and-effect. Such an entity is, therefore, NOT outside of time - since it still follows chronological progression.

Additional to this, if the entity experiences cause-and-effect, such reactions MUST be delineated by the parameters of cause-and-effect... our entity can not have existed/interacted BEFORE causality, and cannot continue beyond the end of causality.

On the other hand - if our entity exists WITHOUT cause-and-effect reality, it CAN be both eternal (from before anything to after everything) AND omnipresent (chronologically, and geographically - it MUST be at ALL points, at all times... otherwise it is exhibiting a chronological association with certain geography.... which means a degree of cause-and-effect, and a preference for some 'time' over other... which makes no logical sense to a non-causal entity).

Now - not only can such an entity not interefere in cause-and-effect reality, it is illogical to suppose it could either a) conceive of cause-and-effect reality, or b) envision such an environment. To explain - if our entity does not exist WITHIN causitive space, it cannot impinge on the passage of electrons... such, it cannot observe images generated in light. It cannot feel the 'effect' of sound waves (since it is outside of cause-and-effect), so it cannot 'hear' spoken words.

How does the non-causative entity intervene in cause-and-effect? If it interferes, it participates, and participation (even miraculous) has cause AND effect, which is chronological progression.

I am not trying to set limits on 'god'... as you point out - 'god' is a concept I don't readily accept. I am also not trying to say that a god that COULD exist WOULD HAVE TO follow 'my' rules.

What I am saying, is that god must be EITHER 'of' or 'alien to' the laws that govern reality... and each scenario carries far-reaching implications about the nature of such an entity.

Dude, shut the hell up.
:) Why?

:fluffle: and kisses GnI

(I hope your wife doesn't mind.)

The position of the scientist posits nothing about that which is unbound by time and space - but you must see why that is? Science can ONLY deal with what is observable, measurable, verifiable.

God has no scientific value (I don't mean it is worthless, just that it cannot be assigned a quantity), due to the alleged non-scientific manner of his/her existence.

You miss my point, though... the original point was NOT that "God could not exist outside of time and still affect it"... because THAT is a theo-centric viewpoint which requires a non-scientific assumption in the base theory.

The original point was that the material, causality-governed, reality CAN ONLY be affected by causality-governed stimuli. Something that exists outside of causality cannot be a cause WITHIN causality, and thus cannot have an effect.

Either: the entity exists within causality, in which case it CAN affect causality, but is limited by the scope of the causative reality, or:

the entity exists outside of causality, in which case it cannot participate in a causative process.

Again, you apply limits to an entity we have not empirical evidence of. We know of nothing that exists unbound by causality and thus have no reason to believe it cannot affect causality. In other words, because IT has no cause doesn't mean it can't be a cause. Even Determinism, a theory wholly based on causality, suggests that a Divine Being would negate the theory as it would break the chain of cause and effect by not being 'caused' but having 'effects' (assuming that Divine Being actually chooses to and is capable of interacting with the universe).

It's not about my standards... and I am quite happy for you to disagree with ANYTHING I say. :)

But, you will have to check your logic-baggage before boarding that flight... because you are going to have to venture into non-logic territory in order to make it work.

A quick example: Our 'god' entity intrudes in our cause-and-effect space. For some small (or large) area of effect, we have ONE of TWO things:

1) A cause-and-effect entity, which exists WITHIN the constraints of reality, at least partially.

2) A non-causative entity, which exists totally WITHOUT the constraints of reality.

If our entity exists partially WITHIN (or entirely within) cause-and-effect reality, it can interfere with cause-and-effect.... it can intervene, and have an effect. However, since it is 'within' our cause-and-effect reality, it is at least PARTIALLY governed BY cause-and-effect... so, one action 'follows' another for this entity (which matches the Biblical description of 'god')... which means the entity experiences reality THROUGH cause-and-effect. Such an entity is, therefore, NOT outside of time - since it still follows chronological progression.

Again, it is not bound by time. It can exist both within and without time, both within and without the universe. There is no logical or emperical evidence that it would required to be one or the other.

Additional to this, if the entity experiences cause-and-effect, such reactions MUST be delineated by the parameters of cause-and-effect... our entity can not have existed/interacted BEFORE causality, and cannot continue beyond the end of causality.

Why? Because you say so? If the being has no cause, why would it be bound by causality? It simply can affect a result. This requires no binding to causality.

On the other hand - if our entity exists WITHOUT cause-and-effect reality, it CAN be both eternal (from before anything to after everything) AND omnipresent (chronologically, and geographically - it MUST be at ALL points, at all times... otherwise it is exhibiting a chronological association with certain geography.... which means a degree of cause-and-effect, and a preference for some 'time' over other... which makes no logical sense to a non-causal entity).

Again, why must it be bound by the limits of our universe? Why does it have to exist completely without cause and effect in order to be eternal and omnipresent?

Now - not only can such an entity not interefere in cause-and-effect reality, it is illogical to suppose it could either a) conceive of cause-and-effect reality, or b) envision such an environment. To explain - if our entity does not exist WITHIN causitive space, it cannot impinge on the passage of electrons... such, it cannot observe images generated in light. It cannot feel the 'effect' of sound waves (since it is outside of cause-and-effect), so it cannot 'hear' spoken words.

Again, you haven't established the basis for your assumption. Why is it illogical to assume a being that we have no evidence of can conceive of anything? How do we know what a being that is not bound by causitive space can or cannot accomplish? On what do you base this assumption?

How does the non-causative entity intervene in cause-and-effect? If it interferes, it participates, and participation (even miraculous) has cause AND effect, which is chronological progression.

Participation violates causality because causality is a string of events going back to the origin of time. A being that created time and space does not necessarily require that it itself be caused. However, if it created time and space, it obviously has an effect. This still does not constrain it to that time or causality that it created.

I am not trying to set limits on 'god'... as you point out - 'god' is a concept I don't readily accept. I am also not trying to say that a god that COULD exist WOULD HAVE TO follow 'my' rules.

What I am saying, is that god must be EITHER 'of' or 'alien to' the laws that govern reality... and each scenario carries far-reaching implications about the nature of such an entity.
i know what you're saying, but you again have to demonstrate why this requirement is necessary. You haven't. We have no evidence, observed or logical of a being unbound by time and causality, so we have nothing on which to base any parameters of its existence. Again, you SAY you're not limiting this being you have no evidence of, but then you say how it MUST exist in one way or another, thus limiting it.

Your 'proof' starts with the basis that this is possible, but you've not demonstrated that any of this is supported by any evidence logical or otherwise. Every piece of logical evidence you've provided requires one to accept the original premise on which it's based.

Now see, isn't the idea of God just a little bit.. improbable?

It [god] can exist both within and without time, both within and without the universe. There is no logical or emperical evidence that it would required to be one or the other.

Rubbish. The universe is by definition everything: "everything that exists, everywhere" (dictionary.com). Anything that exists is part of the universe. What you are really saying is that for god the rules of the universe are different, or work in some way that we do not understand.

And so you're saying that since god is outside of any useful understanding we have of the universe there is no way we could prove or disprove the existance of god (or even that such an entity is possible). Which means we have to take the existance of god on faith, and a book of dubious factual content.

Nevermind that if we accept the christian god we have to accept a whole lot of other baggage like souls and the afterlife, all of which also violate every known physical law of the universe.

:fluffle: and kisses GnI

(I hope your wife doesn't mind.)

Oooh! I wonder what I did to deserve that!? :)

Again, you apply limits to an entity we have not empirical evidence of. We know of nothing that exists unbound by causality and thus have no reason to believe it cannot affect causality. In other words, because IT has no cause doesn't mean it can't be a cause. Even Determinism, a theory wholly based on causality, suggests that a Divine Being would negate the theory as it would break the chain of cause and effect by not being 'caused' but having 'effects' (assuming that Divine Being actually chooses to and is capable of interacting with the universe).

Again, you misappropriate my comments... I have asserted no specific limits on any given entity - I have merely sketched the reality (as I view it) of cause and effect.

There IS an obvious possibility to apply such logic to divinities, but they are not necessary to the theory.

Perhaps I can answer the rest of this point, within my reply to the next.

Again, it is not bound by time. It can exist both within and without time, both within and without the universe. There is no logical or emperical evidence that it would required to be one or the other.


I have argued for the in-AND-out of time situation, and it results in a division... unaffected by causality for some of the time (oh, how ironic), and affected by causality for the remainder of the time... i.e. that time during which interpenetration is occuring.

There is no logical reason to assume a half-way line... any more than there is ACTUALLY the need for someone to be half-alive and half-dead. If you aren't fully dead, you are alive. If you aren't fully non-continuum, you are playing by the rules of causality.


Why? Because you say so? If the being has no cause, why would it be bound by causality? It simply can affect a result. This requires no binding to causality.


The factor of being 'caused' AS AN ENTITY, is actually a sideline... not quite an irrelevence. More important than 'having been caused', is the simple matter of interaction or no-interaction. Intervention requires interaction with cause-and-effect... for two reasons: 1) If intervention DIDN'T require interaction with cause-and-effect, a miracle would be a non-event... i.e. it would have no effect - obviously. 2) If intervention didn't require interaction with cause-and-effect, there would ALWAYS be 'miracle' - rather than any one given miracle event.... that is - if the perception of reality is one self-congruent event, then any action applied FROM that vantage point MUST affect the entire 'event' mass.... i.e. miracles (as interventions) would be perpetual... which means we could measure and observe TWO versions of the event... the 'miraculous' and the 'non-miraculous'.

Of course, logic dictates that if an entity WAS affected by causality, then that effect remains inherent in the entity. If the entity WAS created, it bears the mark of creation... it is eternally stamped with the imprint of cause-and-effect... which, of course, means it can never be ENTIRELY 'other'.


Again, why must it be bound by the limits of our universe? Why does it have to exist completely without cause and effect in order to be eternal and omnipresent?


I'm not saying "it must be bound by the limits of our universe". I'm saying that it must be bound by the limits of reality, IF it exists in reality. If it is entirely NON-reality, it is not bound by any such rules.

"Why does it have to exist completely without cause and effect in order to be eternal and omnipresent"...? Because cause-and-effect occurs within two points... arbitrary and infinite though they are. Those 'limits' are the extremes of infinite duration, and all causes must have their effects within that scope... else the boundary is just stretched that little bit further.

For an entity to be truly 'eternal', it must exceed BOTH of those limits... otherwise, it is defined by the causative reality. If it indulges in cause-and-effect, it's actions are (to some extent) connected to, and thus, circumscribed by, causality. Thus - such an entity is limited to the finity of infinite duration... and thus, not eternal.

Similarly, if, at ANY point, such an entity is tied to ONE location (such as walking through a garden, chatting with the neonates and precursor reptiles), it 'shows a preference' for one location, at some point in geography, at some point in time. It is logical to assume that an entity with infinite duration can occupy ALL points... since it (effectively) always was at every point... but the same logic cannot be supported when the entity is NOT at every point... since it was NOT always at every point.

Thus, one emergence in material space, is enough to invalidate omnipresence.


Again, you haven't established the basis for your assumption. Why is it illogical to assume a being that we have no evidence of can conceive of anything? How do we know what a being that is not bound by causitive space can or cannot accomplish? On what do you base this assumption?


Again, you fall down by thinking I specify a given entity. On the contrary, the logical construct would apply to ANY entity that was capable of being in the either/or causative state.

It is illogical to assume: "a being that we have no evidence of can conceive of anything" (where that unproved entity exists OUTSIDE of causality) because: a) conventional senses cannot operate on non-causative interactions, since they RELY on causality... you KNOW you heard something, because the cause (thing) generates an effect (sound) to your senses; b) non-conventional senses would be required to 'sense' reality from outside of causality (despite biblical stories referring to actual, causative senses)... and we have already established that the creature outside of cause-and-effect cannot witness cause-and-effect, so individual moments cannot be observed... all that can be observed is the self-congruent 'mass' of duration.

Thus - your OUT-OF-TIME entity COULD know every detail of everything, ever.... but could not isolate any event in duration - because it wouldn't be a perceivable artifact. Thus - such an entity could not actually 'conceive' any GIVEN event.


Participation violates causality because causality is a string of events going back to the origin of time. A being that created time and space does not necessarily require that it itself be caused. However, if it created time and space, it obviously has an effect. This still does not constrain it to that time or causality that it created.


On the contrary, if an entity creates a first cause, and a last effect, then that entity is entirely circumscribed by those two points - at least for the duration between them.

Whether or not, THAT entity was 'caused' is (again) almost irrelevent - it's very activity in terms of cause-and-effect entail SOME connectivity with causality.

Thus, the ONLY way in which an entity can be unCaused, is by being 'non-interventionist'... even 'non-scient'.

As such, if an entity DID create all of time and space, such a being cannot be defined as existing solely outside of those parameters... and thus can be neither eternal, nor omnipresent.


i know what you're saying, but you again have to demonstrate why this requirement is necessary. You haven't. We have no evidence, observed or logical of a being unbound by time and causality, so we have nothing on which to base any parameters of its existence. Again, you SAY you're not limiting this being you have no evidence of, but then you say how it MUST exist in one way or another, thus limiting it.


We do have evidence of entities bound by causality - in abundance. We also have theoretical constructs of non-causality... example: stasis.

Such constructs are based on the absence of the constraints of causality, which is, in effect, the logical state of the 'constraints of non-causality'.

As such, non-causality is an ENTIRELY logical model.

And again, I do not limit any specific entity... especially those I can conceptualise, but not 'accept'. It is not MY limits that govern cause-and-effect... that is a reality we encounter daily... perhaps the artifact of some great architect, who knows. But, that architect would be an example of cause-and-effect, and we have a pretty good idea how THAT works (in terms of logical thought, at least). And the absence of such an architect, if our 'super-entity' exists.... shows LACK of intervention in cause-and-effect, which is the stamp of the non-causative model.

I didn't create the models, although I envision them... they are logical extrapolations of the observed.


Your 'proof' starts with the basis that this is possible, but you've not demonstrated that any of this is supported by any evidence logical or otherwise. Every piece of logical evidence you've provided requires one to accept the original premise on which it's based.

Okay - let us assume my idea of non-causative 'reality' is entirely an artifact of my own imagination. It is STILL the logical extrapolation from causative-reality. If an entity does NOT exist in our causative reality, because it is somehow 'suspended from time', then it DOES NOT EXIST in our causative-reality... and, whatever else you might call that, you are just playing naming-games with extra-causative existence.

That's the only step you need to take - and it isn't a blind assumption... it is the model suggested by the question, "if a thing exists, OUTSIDE of causality, what is the nature of that existence"?

Well i have some issues my pea-brained mind cant comprehend...and no im not gonna take it on faith.

So heres some of the questions that give me pause about most relegions specifically christianity.

1.Why does God need minions? Hes all powerfull all knowing all everything according to the bible. Is he lonley or bored or does he need some attention from far inferior beings?
2.Why does God in the OT become such a murdering bastard when his people meet folks that dont agree with there relegious ideas? Even when his own folks start becoming ungrateful ie...leaving Eygypt he decides to walk them to death until he gets the right group to agree with his precepts. Theres tons more of these examples in the OT.
3.In the NT we get a 360 degree turn around with Jesus. He preaches peace and love(id follow this guy)and he speaks to people without preaching to them..Why the big change did God not get it?
4.He creates us to "fellowship" with him and then says if we dont follow him were gonna go to hell. I dont know about you but i dont base my friendships on threats.

I have many more questions but im starting to think that the old testament is a big pack of lies garnered to scare folks into following the leadership at that time. The NT is another egg i really dig what Jesus has to say and it really bugs me to think theres such a HUGE difference between the son and his father.


Somebodys feeding somebody something......

Well i have some issues my pea-brained mind cant comprehend...and no im not gonna take it on faith.

So heres some of the questions that give me pause about most relegions specifically christianity.

1.Why does God need minions? Hes all powerfull all knowing all everything according to the bible. Is he lonley or bored or does he need some attention from far inferior beings?
2.Why does God in the OT become such a murdering bastard when his people meet folks that dont agree with there relegious ideas? Even when his own folks start becoming ungrateful ie...leaving Eygypt he decides to walk them to death until he gets the right group to agree with his precepts. Theres tons more of these examples in the OT.
3.In the NT we get a 360 degree turn around with Jesus. He preaches peace and love(id follow this guy)and he speaks to people without preaching to them..Why the big change did God not get it?
4.He creates us to "fellowship" with him and then says if we dont follow him were gonna go to hell. I dont know about you but i dont base my friendships on threats.

I have many more questions but im starting to think that the old testament is a big pack of lies garnered to scare folks into following the leadership at that time. The NT is another egg i really dig what Jesus has to say and it really bugs me to think theres such a HUGE difference between the son and his father.


Somebodys feeding somebody something......

You need to bear in mind that the Old Testament was written by the scribes of ONE faith, to describe the theological history of their god.

The New Testament was written by members of a DIFFERENT faith, with their OWN view of god... one which the Old Testament writers would not have accepted. It is only connected to the Old Testament at all, because the Old Testament prophecies are used to try to prove Jesus to be 'Messiah'.

You need to bear in mind that the Old Testament was written by the scribes of ONE faith, to describe the theological history of their god.

The New Testament was written by members of a DIFFERENT faith, with their OWN view of god... one which the Old Testament writers would not have accepted. It is only connected to the Old Testament at all, because the Old Testament prophecies are used to try to prove Jesus to be 'Messiah'.
HERITIC !!!11!!

No, you actually said that immaterial CANNOT affect the material and then you said the mind is immaterial and then suggested the mind has no effect on the world. I beg to differ. The mind directly affects the material world so it either is an example of the immateral affecting the material or the mind is not immaterial. I suggest it is the latter, but either way it negates your point, as you said the immaterial cannot affect the material and used the mind as your proof.
The mind has no effect on the world, it is immaterial; the brain does, it is the material; the mind is the subjective perspective on the brain's functions.

Only the material can affect the material. The mind, our perspective on the brain, directly affects the material only in that we give it that symbolic function; we utilize the mind/brain in this way.

If you imagine in your mind a triangle, there is no real triangle in your head; it is a symbol generated in your mind that can only be viewed from the subjective perspective. The mind is, similarly, a symbolising of the brain's processes. Apart from the mind, though, there is still a "we", a "rational agent," who does the symbolizing and utilises the mind/brain.

MY KING IS: The King of the Jews - that's a racial King. The King of Israel - that's a national King; The King of Glory; the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament shows His handiwork.

My King is... A sovereign King. No means of measure can define His limitless Love! No far-reaching telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shortest supply! No barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings!

He's enduringly strong!... He's entirely sincere! He's imperially powerful! He's impartially merciful! He's the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizon of this world!

He's God's Son... The sinner's saviour! The centrepiece of civilization! He stands in the solitude of Himself!

He's august and unique!... He's unparalleled! He's unprecedented! He is the loftiest idea in literature. He's the highest personality in philosophy. He's the supreme problem in higher criticism. He's the fundamental doctrine of true theology! He's the core necessity for spiritual religion. He's the miracle of the ages! He's the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him!

He's the only one qualified to be an all-sufficient Saviour!... He supplies strength for the weak. He's available for the tempted and tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He strengthens and sustains. He guards and guides. He heals the sick. He cleansed the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharges debtors. He delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent and beautifies the meek.

My King is the key to knowledge: The wellspring of wisdom; the doorway of deliverance; the pathway of peace; the roadway of righteousness; the highway of holiness, and the gateway of glory!

His office is manifold: His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His reign is Righteous. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.

I wish I could describe Him for you, but He's indescribable! He's Incomprehensible! He's invincible! He's Irresistible!

You can't get Him out of your mind or off your hands! You can't out-live Him and you can't live without Him! The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't agree. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him, and the grave couldn't hold Him!

That's my King, That's my King, That's my King, and He's the kingdom and the power and the glory - Forever! AMEN!!! I wonder...do you know Him? - Rev. SM Lockridge


by Rev. SM Lockridge


If "he's" indescribable, how would anyone know "he's" invincible?

For example, the catholic church's homophobia isn't 'loving thy neighbor'.

The Catholic church is not homophobic

They believe homosexuality to be a sin, but that does not mean they are afraid of the people.

The Catholic church is not homophobic

They believe homosexuality to be a sin, but that does not mean they are afraid of the people.
To an extent a lot of them are afraid of what they represent …. A divergence from “traditional” morality as espoused by the catholic church .

HERITIC !!!11!!

Yeah yeah... I'm a bad man... :) (shift+one)

To an extent a lot of them are afraid of what they represent …. A divergence from “traditional” morality as espoused by the catholic church .

I dont think its fair to describe it as fear. More like extreme disaproval, but not fear. They do not hate members of the gay community, they hate the sin of homosexual sex. The people are people, all of which are sinners in there own right. They dont hate/fear them personally.

Now see, isn't the idea of God just a little bit.. improbable?



Rubbish. The universe is by definition everything: "everything that exists, everywhere" (dictionary.com). Anything that exists is part of the universe. What you are really saying is that for god the rules of the universe are different, or work in some way that we do not understand.

And so you're saying that since god is outside of any useful understanding we have of the universe there is no way we could prove or disprove the existance of god (or even that such an entity is possible). Which means we have to take the existance of god on faith, and a book of dubious factual content.

Nevermind that if we accept the christian god we have to accept a whole lot of other baggage like souls and the afterlife, all of which also violate every known physical law of the universe.

First, the Universe as a word is used to mean "everything that exists, everywhere" but to science the Universe has limits. The Universe has a beginning (we think) and it possessed certain rules. It is fully possible for something to exist outside of the boundaries of the universe and science accepts this (though it also accepts the existence of such thing is absolutely unprovable).

Yes, faith is the point. If it wasn't, we would call it knowledged. Most Christians, most people in fact, hold that God cannot and will not ever be proven. So, yes, if you wish to take it, you must take it on faith.

These things you have to accept do not violate the known laws of the Universe, they are unbound by it. As improbable as you might find it, they are not impossible.

I have argued for the in-AND-out of time situation, and it results in a division... unaffected by causality for some of the time (oh, how ironic), and affected by causality for the remainder of the time... i.e. that time during which interpenetration is occuring.

I'm busy today, so I'll have to let the rest go for now, but I'd like to point out that it is never affected by causality. It can affect causality. There is a difference. And it is not divided. It can always affect causality. When and where it chooses to do so is at its whim.

I dont think its fair to describe it as fear. More like extreme disaproval, but not fear. They do not hate members of the gay community, they hate the sin of homosexual sex. The people are people, all of which are sinners in there own right. They dont hate/fear them personally.
In some but more commonly with my catholic family and community I see fear. Fear of change and fear that in the end they may possibly be wrong.
Its easy to have faith when you are the majority you don’t have to think about your beliefs as often because sense they are the majority they are more often less questioned (at least in your area)

But with change comes more realization of how you could possibly be mistaken or not completely correct.

Maybe it is because we are a collage town (so all the permanent residence are old school farmers all heavily RC but when school comes on every year there is a massive influx of people with different outlooks and morals) and I sense fear from many of the older people fear that their way of life is not the most prominent anymore and fear that they could possibly be wrong

(I am tired I hope that makes any sense)

I'm busy today, so I'll have to let the rest go for now, but I'd like to point out that it is never affected by causality. It can affect causality. There is a difference. And it is not divided. It can always affect causality. When and where it chooses to do so is at its whim.

The problem I see here, is that you are making your assertions based on a preconceived notion... i.e. that the 'entity' in question must be the 'god' in which you believe.... thus, (it appears) you are setting the rules to match your belief, in preference to what fits logic.

I think I have given enough reason to believe that an entity entirely OUTSIDE of causality can not possibly observe chronological events... thus can never be affected by causality. But, by the same token, such an entity could never cause an effect in observable cause-and-effect reality, either.

And, that any entity which can affect causality MUST be limited by causality... if only by virtue of the fact that his/her actions (cause) produce an effect... thus tying one set of events to linear chronology.

You are not making any logical reason WHY an entity OUTSIDE of causality SHOULD have any ability to affect, or be affected by, causality.


The ball's in your court: what is your logical premise that explains how a non-event point mass, with a quantum probability of zero... can cause actual material effects in cause-and-effect space?

To an extent a lot of them are afraid of what they represent …. A divergence from “traditional” morality as espoused by the catholic church .

even if this were true, it in no stretch of the meaning is homophobic. This word is tossed around very lightly these days (just like nazi and facist) but it describes only a very few people. Homophobe is one that has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Disagreeing with the lifestyle of someone is NOT homophobic. People are allowed to disagree with lifestyles without being overrun with some phobia or another.

even if this were true, it in no stretch of the meaning is homophobic. This word is tossed around very lightly these days (just like nazi and facist) but it describes only a very few people. Homophobe is one that has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Disagreeing with the lifestyle of someone is NOT homophobic. People are allowed to disagree with lifestyles without being overrun with some phobia or another.
I agree it is thrown around an awful lot but to say they are completely without fear when I can plainly see a lot of them in my area frankly are is kind of silly too.

I not trying to say necessarily they fall on the phobia range but …

In some but more commonly with my catholic family and community I see fear. Fear of change and fear that in the end they may possibly be wrong.
Its easy to have faith when you are the majority you don’t have to think about your beliefs as often because sense they are the majority they are more often less questioned (at least in your area)

But with change comes more realization of how you could possibly be mistaken or not completely correct.

Maybe it is because we are a collage town (so all the permanent residence are old school farmers all heavily RC but when school comes on every year there is a massive influx of people with different outlooks and morals) and I sense fear from many of the older people fear that their way of life is not the most prominent anymore and fear that they could possibly be wrong

(I am tired I hope that makes any sense)

I understand what you're saying and I can see the truth behind it. However, these people are not suffering from a phobia of homosexuals, they're fearing change or ignorance, not gays. Gays may be the catalyst that sparks their fear in change, but they're not suffering from homophobia.

I understand what you're saying and I can see the truth behind it. However, these people are not suffering from a phobia of homosexuals, they're fearing change or ignorance, not gays. Gays may be the catalyst that sparks their fear in change, but they're not suffering from homophobia.
Reffer to my last post (figure I would say something sense it rolled over to new page) I was not attempting to espouse a phobia that they suffer but rather just fear in general sometimes

The problem I see here, is that you are making your assertions based on a preconceived notion... i.e. that the 'entity' in question must be the 'god' in which you believe.... thus, (it appears) you are setting the rules to match your belief, in preference to what fits logic.

I think I have given enough reason to believe that an entity entirely OUTSIDE of causality can not possibly observe chronological events... thus can never be affected by causality. But, by the same token, such an entity could never cause an effect in observable cause-and-effect reality, either.

And, that any entity which can affect causality MUST be limited by causality... if only by virtue of the fact that his/her actions (cause) produce an effect... thus tying one set of events to linear chronology.

You are not making any logical reason WHY an entity OUTSIDE of causality SHOULD have any ability to affect, or be affected by, causality.


The ball's in your court: what is your logical premise that explains how a non-event point mass, with a quantum probability of zero... can cause actual material effects in cause-and-effect space?

Are you leaving room for this entity to have the possibility of entering in and retreating from your so-called causality at will?

The problem I see here, is that you are making your assertions based on a preconceived notion... i.e. that the 'entity' in question must be the 'god' in which you believe.... thus, (it appears) you are setting the rules to match your belief, in preference to what fits logic.

I think I have given enough reason to believe that an entity entirely OUTSIDE of causality can not possibly observe chronological events... thus can never be affected by causality. But, by the same token, such an entity could never cause an effect in observable cause-and-effect reality, either.

And, that any entity which can affect causality MUST be limited by causality... if only by virtue of the fact that his/her actions (cause) produce an effect... thus tying one set of events to linear chronology.

You are not making any logical reason WHY an entity OUTSIDE of causality SHOULD have any ability to affect, or be affected by, causality.


The ball's in your court: what is your logical premise that explains how a non-event point mass, with a quantum probability of zero... can cause actual material effects in cause-and-effect space?

Again, I'm pressed for time, but the simple answer is that I can't logically support my views on God at all, but they certainly can't be disproven as we have no evidence either way. You CAN'T logically or otherwise disprove my version or almost anyone else's version of God unless them make claims that are demonstrably false (like the Earth is 6000 years old). I make no such claims.

If you're suggesting that you've just discovered the new idea that God is capable of violating the rules of physics, then my response is "DUH" (yes, yes, I know you're not claiming your ideas are new). However, we have no evidence on which to base any rules on the ability or disability of a being unbound by the laws in which we reside. Thus you've not proven logically or otherwise under which rules or sets of rules this being must reside. We simply have nothing to base it on. You may very well be right on the restrictions on such an entity, but it's not what I believe and it doesn't speak in any fashion to what I believe. I'm not suggesting that your version of God (the one you're talking about, not the one you believe in) is not a possibility. I accept that almost any version of God(s) is a possibility and yours is no different. However, you've claimed to disprove my version of God in that He is impossible and, to this, I take exception. That's the point. I hold and have always held that God cannot be proven to exist, the parameters or lack of parameters under which God resides cannot be proven (and likely can't be understood) by any human EVER. Thus, my very belief system makes it impossible for me to prove my version of God exists (convenient, isn't it?). My point is only that you can't demonstrate in any fashion that He is impossible.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.[/SIZE]


Your entire post is faulty. Christianity was never created. God has always existed and was always worshipped in some form.

And what is your obsession with sex? You seem fixated on the subject... and violence. Next time you decide to create your own history of the world, try to use a little self-control.

Your entire post is faulty. Christianity was never created. God has always existed and was always worshipped in some form.


Even if that were true it would still be created (by god)

More from Great Uncle Roy

The shining being spoke and held the fruit aloft at the same time--therefore he had hands
and could speak

In Hebrew nacash means serpent--and a serpent is a shining being--like a scaly Gila monster

he was MORE SUBTLE than any beast (animal)
it doesn't say he was THE MOST subltle of beasts
so it clearly states he wasn't an animal--therefore not a snake
and the fruit wasn't an apple

Enoch says it looked sorta like grapes

He was an angel

and if you read Enoch it even tells his name

Satan means enemy

devil means accuser

the bible doesn't say the serpent himself was satan in satan's entirety

Enoch explains that he wasn't even the leader

he was one of 200 captains

Satan means the whole enemy

it's not one being

but sometimes the leader get's some inclusive designation

please realize this isn't a religion

it is a narrative of real historical events couched in a flexible symbolic language

meant to reach manmy people
at many levels
over vast periods of time

would you have preferred God said INTERDIMENSIONAL BEING

to people several thousands of years ago?

They have determined mathematically that there are 10 dimensions

do you suppose there is
was
has been
will be
could be
shant be
shouldn't be

or any other words that pertain to numbers 7 and nine (for example)

anything going on in them?

this is
(what?)

2005?

and some of y'all can't handle it, even now

let the Mesopotamian myths bury the Dead Mesopotamians

let's let the scales fall from our eyes
and proceed heceforth

BUT THANX FER ALL THE HELP
NOW i'M GONNA GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING REALLY BEAUTIFUL WITH MY LIFE
AND I OWE IT ALL TO YOU

The mind has no effect on the world, it is immaterial; the brain does, it is the material; the mind is the subjective perspective on the brain's functions.

Only the material can affect the material. The mind, our perspective on the brain, directly affects the material only in that we give it that symbolic function; we utilize the mind/brain in this way.

If you imagine in your mind a triangle, there is no real triangle in your head; it is a symbol generated in your mind that can only be viewed from the subjective perspective. The mind is, similarly, a symbolising of the brain's processes. Apart from the mind, though, there is still a "we", a "rational agent," who does the symbolizing and utilises the mind/brain.

One way or the other, the mind, the 'we', the 'rational agent', the 'self' or any of the other names you use for this thing you claim is immaterial, it affects the world. If my mind or my rational agent decides it wishes to draw a picture and then my brain acts on this to create a picture with my hands, then the world has been affected by this 'mind', this 'rational agent'. Either you admit that the mind, the rational agent, the self, the we, is material or you admit that this immaterial thing interacts with the world as it reacts to the world and it causes the world to react to it. The fact that you would attemp to deny the truth of this is flabbergasting. Otherwise, where did this post that is clearly material come from?

Again, I'm pressed for time, but the simple answer is that I can't logically support my views on God at all, but they certainly can't be disproven as we have no evidence either way. You CAN'T logically or otherwise disprove my version or almost anyone else's version of God unless them make claims that are demonstrably false (like the Earth is 6000 years old). I make no such claims.

If you're suggesting that you've just discovered the new idea that God is capable of violating the rules of physics, then my response is "DUH" (yes, yes, I know you're not claiming your ideas are new). However, we have no evidence on which to base any rules on the ability or disability of a being unbound by the laws in which we reside. Thus you've not proven logically or otherwise under which rules or sets of rules this being must reside. We simply have nothing to base it on. You may very well be right on the restrictions on such an entity, but it's not what I believe and it doesn't speak in any fashion to what I believe. I'm not suggesting that your version of God (the one you're talking about, not the one you believe in) is not a possibility. I accept that almost any version of God(s) is a possibility and yours is no different. However, you've claimed to disprove my version of God in that He is impossible and, to this, I take exception. That's the point. I hold and have always held that God cannot be proven to exist, the parameters or lack of parameters under which God resides cannot be proven (and likely can't be understood) by any human EVER. Thus, my very belief system makes it impossible for me to prove my version of God exists (convenient, isn't it?). My point is only that you can't demonstrate in any fashion that He is impossible.

I thought of a way to explain this while I was at lunch. Let's further limit our reality so the we can talk of those things that are greater than our reality intelligently. Imagine we are incapable of seeing or thinking in color. None of us have ever observed blue as we understand it today. It just looks to us to be a particular shade of gray. We have no word for blue nor any reason to believe it exists.

Now there is a group, a large group, that worships a non-black and white God. They aren't entirely sure what 'non-black and white' means but they know that it is not limited to black, white and shades of gray. When they finally pass away and view their God, they will see all sorts of non-black and white shades that have never been seen before. However, this being is also capable of appearing black and white so that we may see and understand it. It is capable of interacting with our world.

You say, "well then it must be black and white. It can't be both black and white and non-black and white. It's illogical."

"No," I say, "at times it can be black and white and at others it can be non-black and white at its whim, which means it is not bound by the shades of black and white. "

Now, of course, this conversation seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about here, but really it's the point. We are trying to discuss an aspect of the universe that we don't understand because we don't and can't think in terms of a lack of time. So we have these strange conversations that do not allow for time and timelessness to coexist. We have these conversations where we don't have even the language to capably talk about a being unbound by time. I can't tell a story that is not based in time any more than a human in a black and white world could tell a story in color. This doesn't place any limits on color or on anything unbound by time.

Your entire post is faulty. Christianity was never created. God has always existed and was always worshipped in some form.

And what is your obsession with sex? You seem fixated on the subject... and violence. Next time you decide to create your own history of the world, try to use a little self-control.

Wow, that's an interesting version of history you have there. I wonder if you've found this history in your Utopian Dreamland, because it certainly doesn't describe reality. GodS have always been worshipped in some form, but the judeochristian form of God or anything even remotely similar is a relatively new concept in the vast history of the human race.

I thought of a way to explain this while I was at lunch. Let's further limit our reality so the we can talk of those things that are greater than our reality intelligently. Imagine we are incapable of seeing or thinking in color. None of us have ever observed blue as we understand it today. It just looks to us to be a particular shade of gray. We have no word for blue nor any reason to believe it exists.

Now there is a group, a large group, that worships a non-black and white God. They aren't entirely sure what 'non-black and white' means but they know that it is not limited to black, white and shades of gray. When they finally pass away and view their God, they will see all sorts of non-black and white shades that have never been seen before. However, this being is also capable of appearing black and white so that we may see and understand it. It is capable of interacting with our world.

You say, "well then it must be black and white. It can't be both black and white and non-black and white. It's illogical."

"No," I say, "at times it can be black and white and at others it can be non-black and white at its whim, which means it is not bound by the shades of black and white. "

Now, of course, this conversation seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about here, but really it's the point. We are trying to discuss an aspect of the universe that we don't understand because we don't and can't think in terms of a lack of time. So we have these strange conversations that do not allow for time and timelessness to coexist. We have these conversations where we don't have even the language to capably talk about a being unbound by time. I can't tell a story that is not based in time any more than a human in a black and white world could tell a story in color. This doesn't place any limits on color or on anything unbound by time.

Excellent analogy! :cool:

One way or the other, the mind, the 'we', the 'rational agent', the 'self' or any of the other names you use for this thing you claim is immaterial, it affects the world. If my mind or my rational agent decides it wishes to draw a picture and then my brain acts on this to create a picture with my hands, then the world has been affected by this 'mind', this 'rational agent'. Either you admit that the mind, the rational agent, the self, the we, is material or you admit that this immaterial thing interacts with the world as it reacts to the world and it causes the world to react to it. The fact that you would attemp to deny the truth of this is flabbergasting. Otherwise, where did this post that is clearly material come from?
"Interact" is the key word; it does not describe what is happening when we (the rational agent) "cause" things. "I wrote this post," claims a rational agent. It symbolizes a centre, an "I" who wrote the post, and assigns that as the cause of things. If you assign the cause of things "you do" to anything other than that rational agent, then you give that other thing the power to be the cause of what "you" did. Then that rational agent goes *poof*. He's not needed anymore. He's just a useless symbol. Then you are also giving away responsibility for what "you did," because you didn't do it, the other thing you have given away the assignation of power to did it.

I thought of a way to explain this while I was at lunch. Let's further limit our reality so the we can talk of those things that are greater than our reality intelligently. Imagine we are incapable of seeing or thinking in color. None of us have ever observed blue as we understand it today. It just looks to us to be a particular shade of gray. We have no word for blue nor any reason to believe it exists.

Now there is a group, a large group, that worships a non-black and white God. They aren't entirely sure what 'non-black and white' means but they know that it is not limited to black, white and shades of gray. When they finally pass away and view their God, they will see all sorts of non-black and white shades that have never been seen before. However, this being is also capable of appearing black and white so that we may see and understand it. It is capable of interacting with our world.

You say, "well then it must be black and white. It can't be both black and white and non-black and white. It's illogical."

"No," I say, "at times it can be black and white and at others it can be non-black and white at its whim, which means it is not bound by the shades of black and white. "

Now, of course, this conversation seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about here, but really it's the point. We are trying to discuss an aspect of the universe that we don't understand because we don't and can't think in terms of a lack of time. So we have these strange conversations that do not allow for time and timelessness to coexist. We have these conversations where we don't have even the language to capably talk about a being unbound by time. I can't tell a story that is not based in time any more than a human in a black and white world could tell a story in color. This doesn't place any limits on color or on anything unbound by time.
We must define God by what we know, not what we can't know.

"Interact" is the key word; it does not describe what is happening when we (the rational agent) "cause" things. "I wrote this post," claims a rational agent. It symbolizes a centre, an "I" who wrote the post, and assigns that as the cause of things. If you assign the cause of things "you do" to anything other than that rational agent, then you give that other thing the power to be the cause of what "you" did. Then that rational agent goes *poof*. He's not needed anymore. He's just a useless symbol. Then you are also giving away responsibility for what "you did," because you didn't do it, the other thing you have given away the assignation of power to did it.

Way to change the subject. There is a thread about this and that point has been addressed a dozen times. The point I was addressing is that the 'immaterial' rational agent affects the world. Thus it is either not immaterial or you believe that something immaterial can affect the material world. It must be one of those two. If you'd like to discuss Determinism please visit that thread and continue to display your misunderstanding of what is and is not tenets of Determinism.

We must define God by what we know, not what we can't know.

False. Says who? God has almost consistently been defined by what we don't know. Do we know He is the creator of the universe? Do we know He hates sin? Do we know he is omnipotent? Do we even really understand what omnipotent really entails? Do we really understand what it means to be unbound by time, yet it is often held that God created time and is, thus, master of it? Do we KNOW he is omniscient? Do we even understand what omniscient really entails? Etc. If God was defined by what we know then He would not exist.

False. Says who? God has almost consistently been defined by what we don't know. Do we know He is the creator of the universe? Do we know He hates sin? Do we know he is omnipotent? Do we even really understand what omnipotent really entails? Do we really understand what it means to be unbound by time, yet it is often held that God created time and is, thus, master of it? Do we KNOW he is omniscient? Do we even understand what omniscient really entails? Etc. If God was defined by what we know then He would not exist.
Congratulations; you just tore down your entire religion.

Congratulations; you just tore down your entire religion.

Really? Seems like someone doesn't know the difference between knowledge and faith. There are dictionaries online. Feel free to use one.

Way to change the subject. There is a thread about this and that point has been addressed a dozen times. The point I was addressing is that the 'immaterial' rational agent affects the world. Thus it is either not immaterial or you believe that something immaterial can affect the material world. It must be one of those two. If you'd like to discuss Determinism please visit that thread and continue to display your misunderstanding of what is and is not tenets of Determinism.
:headbang:

Really? Seems like someone doesn't know the difference between knowledge and faith. There are dictionaries online. Feel free to use one.
http://www.christian-faith.com/bible-studies/faith.html

To have faith is to be fully convinced of the truthfulness and reliability of that in which you believe.

Faith causes you to know in your heart before you see with your eyes. "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2Cor 5.7)

http://www.christian-faith.com/bible-studies/faith.html

To have faith is to be fully convinced of the truthfulness and reliability of that in which you believe.

Faith causes you to know in your heart before you see with your eyes. "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2Cor 5.7)

Um, I don't hold to anyone else's definition of my faith than my own, first of all. There is certainly not only one definition of Christianity. Secondly, the use of the word KNOW there was obvious. If you cannot distiguish it from faith, then I can't help you. Maybe I'm not a 'Hard Christian' by your definition either, but I was under the impression that Christianity was defined by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, not by the website you quoted.

Um, I don't hold to anyone else's definition of my faith than my own, first of all. There is certainly not only one definition of Christianity. Secondly, the use of the word KNOW there was obvious. If you cannot distiguish it from faith, then I can't help you. Maybe I'm not a 'Hard Christian' by your definition either, but I was under the impression that Christianity was defined by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, not by the website you quoted.
The definition of faith as it is defined there is as I understand to be. If your definition varies, then perhaps you do not have faith.

I don't know what a "Hard Christian" is, sorry.

I could respond to you on the matter "knowing with the heart," but that response would no doubt be misunderstood also.

The definition of faith as it is defined there is as I understand to be. If your definition varies, then perhaps you do not have faith.

I don't know what a "Hard Christian" is, sorry.

I could respond to you on the matter "knowing with the heart," but that response would no doubt be misunderstood also.

Dictionaries are your friend.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith
Faith - 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

You do know the difference between belief and knowledge? You do know the difference between faith for which there is no emperical evidence and knowledge for which there is? You aren't seriously claiming you don't know the difference between faith and knowledge, are you?

I follow my heart and BELIEVE it to be the truth. However, for the purpose of discussion, how is what I BELIEVE to be true in my heart of any use? Do you not know the difference betweens results of faith and results of emperical evidence? More importantly, the omnipotence and omniscience questions are not answered for me by my faith (meaning the implications thereof). Does this means I can't believe anything about these things? You are avoiding the point. Who says we can't speculate? Not God. Not Jesus. Who says I can't try to figure out what I don't already hold to be true?

Are you leaving room for this entity to have the possibility of entering in and retreating from your so-called causality at will?

Go back and read what I've written, again. As far as I can tell, that option has been covered, twice.

Again, I'm pressed for time, but the simple answer is that I can't logically support my views on God at all, but they certainly can't be disproven as we have no evidence either way.


I am not talking about god. Yours, mine or anyone elses. I am talking about the rules of causality. It's not my fault that the logical structure of causality doesn't allow for certain entities... and it is CERTAINLY not my fault that one of the many entities it might limit, would be the entity you call 'god'.

I am certainly not directing any attempts to prove/disprove and gods... especially not 'yours'.


You CAN'T logically or otherwise disprove my version or almost anyone else's version of God unless them make claims that are demonstrably false (like the Earth is 6000 years old). I make no such claims.


I wouldn't want to. However, I can logically show a model of causality, and logically construct the parallel model for Causality-limited and NON-Causality-limited entities, based upon that model.

THAT is the model you need to approach. I say nothing about 'god'.


If you're suggesting that you've just discovered the new idea that God is capable of violating the rules of physics, then my response is "DUH" (yes, yes, I know you're not claiming your ideas are new).


Violating the laws of physics would still be 'causality' based interference. The actual violation or non-violation is irrelevent.


However, we have no evidence on which to base any rules on the ability or disability of a being unbound by the laws in which we reside. Thus you've not proven logically or otherwise under which rules or sets of rules this being must reside. We simply have nothing to base it on.


I say nothing to any model of god. I can't seem to say this enough... I also am not debating the malleability of the laws of physics. I JUST describe the constraints of causality versus non-causality.


You may very well be right on the restrictions on such an entity, but it's not what I believe and it doesn't speak in any fashion to what I believe. I'm not suggesting that your version of God (the one you're talking about, not the one you believe in) is not a possibility.


That is your belief. It has nothing to do with whether or not your belief is logical, or my model of causality is logical.

Again - I am NOT talking about 'god'... since 'god' would just be one of an infinite number of possible entities that might be constrained by presence or absence of causality.

But, unless you can find flaw in my model, you are effectively arguing that you chose faith OVER logic.


I accept that almost any version of God(s) is a possibility and yours is no different.


I have no god, and am not interested in making one. I am debating something quite different.

However, you've claimed to disprove my version of God in that He is impossible and, to this, I take exception.


I haven't claimed anything about a specific god - I have just shown that, even if you allow for miracles, omnipotence, etc... there are actually still the constraints of Causality (one way or another) that can define how such an entity (miracles, and all) could operate.

Also - your 'god' IS impossible... that's the whole point. If he wasn't impossible, he wouldn't be God.


That's the point. I hold and have always held that God cannot be proven to exist, the parameters or lack of parameters under which God resides cannot be proven (and likely can't be understood) by any human EVER. Thus, my very belief system makes it impossible for me to prove my version of God exists (convenient, isn't it?). My point is only that you can't demonstrate in any fashion that He is impossible.

I haven't even made an attempt to prove/disprove god. I ALSO believe that such an endeavour would be fruitless.

However, you cannot deny that the parameters 'exist'... unless you surrender any notion of omnipotence, or omniscience, or omnipresence, or any of a host of omni-something-ences. "Omnipotence" IS a parameter. As is "Eternal". And yet, those two parameters actually cause a conflict. And that 'conflict' is ALL I am speaking to.

I am not trying to prove your 'god' possible or impossible... although ANY entity (your 'god' included) cannot LOGICALLY be both infinite (eternal) and omnipotent (interventionist).

I am not talking about god. Yours, mine or anyone elses. I am talking about the rules of causality. It's not my fault that the logical structure of causality doesn't allow for certain entities... and it is CERTAINLY not my fault that one of the many entities it might limit, would be the entity you call 'god'.

I am certainly not directing any attempts to prove/disprove and gods... especially not 'yours'.



I wouldn't want to. However, I can logically show a model of causality, and logically construct the parallel model for Causality-limited and NON-Causality-limited entities, based upon that model.

THAT is the model you need to approach. I say nothing about 'god'.



Violating the laws of physics would still be 'causality' based interference. The actual violation or non-violation is irrelevent.



I say nothing to any model of god. I can't seem to say this enough... I also am not debating the malleability of the laws of physics. I JUST describe the constraints of causality versus non-causality.



That is your belief. It has nothing to do with whether or not your belief is logical, or my model of causality is logical.

Again - I am NOT talking about 'god'... since 'god' would just be one of an infinite number of possible entities that might be constrained by presence or absence of causality.

But, unless you can find flaw in my model, you are effectively arguing that you chose faith OVER logic.



I have no god, and am not interested in making one. I am debating something quite different.



I haven't claimed anything about a specific god - I have just shown that, even if you allow for miracles, omnipotence, etc... there are actually still the constraints of Causality (one way or another) that can define how such an entity (miracles, and all) could operate.

Also - your 'god' IS impossible... that's the whole point. If he wasn't impossible, he wouldn't be God.



I haven't even made an attempt to prove/disprove god. I ALSO believe that such an endeavour would be fruitless.

However, you cannot deny that the parameters 'exist'... unless you surrender any notion of omnipotence, or omniscience, or omnipresence, or any of a host of omni-something-ences. "Omnipotence" IS a parameter. As is "Eternal". And yet, those two parameters actually cause a conflict. And that 'conflict' is ALL I am speaking to.

I am not trying to prove your 'god' possible or impossible... although ANY entity (your 'god' included) cannot LOGICALLY be both infinite (eternal) and omnipotent (interventionist).

You look at causality and suggest it extends that it extends to non-causality, but you have no examples of non-causality to base it on. Thus, it is simply speculation. However, from that speculation, you land on declaring what is possible and what is impossible and you're not in a position to do that since it is COMPLETELY speculation. That's the point. I explained to you why I can't support my view, just like you can't support you, because we have no evidence of non-causality. WE have nothing to base it on rather than extrapolations that REQUIRE a giant leap in logic. One you're happy to make and one I'm not.

Go back and read what I've written, again. As far as I can tell, that option has been covered, twice.

I did reread it. You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a student of cause and effect and your explanation, with the word causality used so often in such close proximity, began sounding more like you were speaking arabic. :D

:headbang:

That's my girl! :)

I did reread it. You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a student of cause and effect and your explanation, with the word causality used so often in such close proximity, began sounding more like you were speaking arabic. :D

"יט לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה."

"נִחַם יְהוָה, עַל-זֹאת; גַּם-הִיא לֹא תִהְיֶה, אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה."

"יד מִי יוֹדֵעַ, יָשׁוּב וְנִחָם; וְהִשְׁאִיר אַחֲרָיו, בְּרָכָה--מִנְחָה וָנֶסֶךְ, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם."

:D

Seriously - to put it seriously... if you were held in stasis, what effect would time have on you? And what effect could you have on time?

:D

Seriously - to put it seriously... if you were held in stasis, what effect would time have on you? And what effect could you have on time?
No conscious effect but being existent in of itself could effect people and things that are not in stasis

I Hate these kind of discusssions, I'm a Christian right? As are many of you, The rest of you are Atheist's or Agnostics. Its basically Science Vs Christainity, us christians are always willing to listen to your arguments but you just don't seem to want to hear ours, you can't accept the reality of them, if God didn't exist we as humans wouldn't have the compulsive urge to know whether he does or not, he put that there for us to be able to choose between him and our own views. Another thing, this thread is silly Science is not Christainity's enemy or foe, it's its partner, its supporter God created science to work with christianity not against it. I'm no scientist ok I'm just a 15 year old kid, but I have faith and thats worth more than knowledge.

I Hate these kind of discusssions, I'm a Christian right? As are many of you, The rest of you are Atheist's or Agnostics. Its basically Science Vs Christainity, us christians are always willing to listen to your arguments but you just don't seem to want to hear ours, you can't accept the reality of them, if God didn't exist we as humans wouldn't have the compulsive urge to know whether he does or not, he put that there for us to be able to choose between him and our own views. Another thing, this thread is silly Science is not Christainity's enemy or foe, it's its partner, its supporter God created science to work with christianity not against it. I'm no scientist ok I'm just a 15 year old kid, but I have faith and thats worth more than knowledge.


Ok....your little speech is nothing that hasnt been said before.
The problem is that in this kind of debate, there are two certainties.

1. The existance of God cannot be proven, either way.

2. No one will be converted, one way or another, online.

So...you feel that athiests "refuse to accept the reality of our beliefs."
You ust understand how silly that is to us...becuase we think you believe in something that doesnt exist.
Much the same way that you probably think NOT believing in God is silly.

These kinds of debates will go on forever, and this forum will see many of them.

So...instead of trying to prove that God doesnt exist, I tend to take a different approach.
I cant make Christians into Athiests, but I can try to make them open thier minds a bit.
I like to ask them simple questions that make them consider what they truly believe.

Funny thing is....Christians are the most closed minded people you'll likely ever to meet.
Its tough.

Why is that?

Think of this:

Science does not require you to believe in fantasy, or impossible events to explain why things happen.
If it does, it will provide evidence, and theories to back it up.
Christianity, requires you to believe the most outlandish, and impossible story ever written, and gives you absolutely no proof that any of it ever happened, or, if the characters involved, really are who they say they are.

God expects you to believe, without question, the most important thing in the universe..."how did it all happen"?..and the only answer it provides, is "you must have faith".

So..Christianity, asks everything from you, and does nothing to lend creedence to its theories.

Athiesm, merely says.....if you cant prove something exists...it doesnt.

BackwoodsSquatches:

Please be careful when you lump ALL Christians in the same category....I AM not closed-minded....I love to learn more about ALL beliefs....but that being said...I also don't have to agree with them...I have a Jewish friend...a Mormon friend....a Pagan friend (she prefers that she be called Pagan over Wiccan or any other name)....and some friends that don't believe in any diety....and they can all talk to me about their faith and I can talk to them about mine...Why?....because although we may disagree on many things, we can always find something in common about our beliefs, too...so instead of letting our differences get in the way of our friendship, we celebrate the things that we have in common....saying that Christians are the most closed minded people you'll likely ever to meet is just as awful as if I said that atheists/agnostics are the most ignorant people that you will likely ever meet...a) I don't believe that and b) there may be some ignorant ones out there, but that doesn't mean that ALL of them are....and as much as you may think that a Christian's beliefs are outlandish....do you think that calling them outlandish in a debate will get anyone who believes those things to think about anything that you have to say?....I guess I'm a little saddened by this post of yours because we had a wonderful chat the other night and it was free of judgement and yet we were still debating our points...it was just two people chatting about their differences....I understand how frustrating it must be for you to come across some Christians who are closed-minded...but you just may find that if you listen to what they have to say with an open mind, then just maybe they may be willing to listen to what you have to say....and maybe they won't...but at least you know that you went into the conversation with an open mind and it is completely their loss.

Ok....your little speech is nothing that hasnt been said before.
The problem is that in this kind of debate, there are two certainties.

1. The existance of God cannot be proven, either way.

2. No one will be converted, one way or another, online.

So...you feel that athiests "refuse to accept the reality of our beliefs."
You ust understand how silly that is to us...becuase we think you believe in something that doesnt exist.
Much the same way that you probably think NOT believing in God is silly.

These kinds of debates will go on forever, and this forum will see many of them.

So...instead of trying to prove that God doesnt exist, I tend to take a different approach.
I cant make Christians into Athiests, but I can try to make them open thier minds a bit.
I like to ask them simple questions that make them consider what they truly believe.

Funny thing is....Christians are the most closed minded people you'll likely ever to meet.
Its tough.

Why is that?

Think of this:

Science does not require you to believe in fantasy, or impossible events to explain why things happen.
If it does, it will provide evidence, and theories to back it up.
Christianity, requires you to believe the most outlandish, and impossible story ever written, and gives you absolutely no proof that any of it ever happened, or, if the characters involved, really are who they say they are.

God expects you to believe, without question, the most important thing in the universe..."how did it all happen"?..and the only answer it provides, is "you must have faith".

So..Christianity, asks everything from you, and does nothing to lend creedence to its theories.

Athiesm, merely says.....if you cant prove something exists...it doesnt.

I know you're just replying to that post, but keep in mind that not all of us (Christians) are close-minded, just usually the loudest, most ridiculous of us (no names please). Also I don't believe science and religion to be in conflict like the previous poster. How can one think God created the universe and thus Science and also think that he would expect us to believe stories that violate it? Some of us can tell the difference between an explanation and historical fact. Yes, I can't prove God to you and I won't try. But I promise that if you open your mind a bit, that mine will always be open to you. I believe that there's something Jesus said about that, some Golden Rule or something. ;)

You look at causality and suggest it extends that it extends to non-causality, but you have no examples of non-causality to base it on. Thus, it is simply speculation. However, from that speculation, you land on declaring what is possible and what is impossible and you're not in a position to do that since it is COMPLETELY speculation. That's the point. I explained to you why I can't support my view, just like you can't support you, because we have no evidence of non-causality. WE have nothing to base it on rather than extrapolations that REQUIRE a giant leap in logic. One you're happy to make and one I'm not.

Again - I am not sure how you miss the point so thoroughly... I do NOT say that causality extends to non-causality. There is a clear division... that which defines causality, exists within causality... thus, by deduction, that which defies causality, exists without causality. Acausality is defined by the antithesis of causality.

It isn't 'speculation' any more than it would be find one full bucket, and one empty bucket, and assume that the empty bucket had nothing in it.

We DO have theoretical evidence of acuasality... in the form of stasis... and we do have the capacity to extrapolate what acausality entails, by reviewing what causality entails.

I'm not making any 'giant leaps' - logical or otherwise. I have followed a direct series of steps, none of which requires any great endeavour. I suspect that the only reason you consider them leaps, is because you are bound by your belief.

No conscious effect but being existent in of itself could effect people and things that are not in stasis

Not true... an entity in stasis would effectively be removed from chronology, until the stasis effect ceased. Thus, the entity within stasis could not affect, or be affected by anything outside of that stasis effect.

Add to this, if our entity had ALWAYS been in stasis (i.e. outside of causality) what effect could he/she have?

us christians are always willing to listen to your arguments but you just don't seem to want to hear ours, SHwaa? You might have gotten that a tad backwards.

you can't accept the reality of them,
And we atheists aren't listening?

if God didn't exist we as humans wouldn't have the compulsive urge to know whether he does or not,[/quote] That's like saying if a perfect island didn't exist, we wouldn't have the urge to explore and find it. Bunk theory, as it makes no logical sense in either form.

but I have faith and thats worth more than knowledge. Knowledge you can test and empirically prove. Faith you cannot. That is what makes science so viable. And why I would have to disagree with your statement entirely.

I Hate these kind of discusssions, I'm a Christian right? As are many of you, The rest of you are Atheist's or Agnostics. Its basically Science Vs Christainity, us christians are always willing to listen to your arguments but you just don't seem to want to hear ours, you can't accept the reality of them, if God didn't exist we as humans wouldn't have the compulsive urge to know whether he does or not, he put that there for us to be able to choose between him and our own views. Another thing, this thread is silly Science is not Christainity's enemy or foe, it's its partner, its supporter God created science to work with christianity not against it. I'm no scientist ok I'm just a 15 year old kid, but I have faith and thats worth more than knowledge.

First: Christians aren't 'always willing' to listen to the arguments of the Atheist or the Agnostic. That VERY MUCH depends on the Christian.

Second: You don't allow for the fact that MANY Agnostics or Atheists have BEEN Christians. And, thus, have seen most of the arguments the Christian is likely to make, from BOTH sides of the fence.

Third: "God didn't exist we as humans wouldn't have the compulsive urge to know whether he does or not". Evidence? The innate curiousity of most mammals argues against this premise.

Fourth: Sometimes, faith IS the enemy of science. Like the Kansas school-board deciding it is okay for science teachers to teach Intelligent Design.

Fifth: "I have faith and thats worth more than knowledge". Very much a matter of opinion, my friend... I would have to argue that your statement was utterly wrong. In fact, if you think about it, faith REQUIRES knowledge... you wouldn't believe in 'god' if you had never encountered the concept...

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out a post I made weeks ago in this same thread (which incidentally should have also ended weeks ago).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430690

Case closed.

Fourth: Sometimes, faith IS the enemy of science. Like the Kansas school-board deciding it is okay for science teachers to teach Intelligent Design.



And how does that make faith and science enemies? Teaching both theories seems VERY scientific to me. Only teaching one unproven theory is stacking the deck and that is not scientific at all.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out a post I made weeks ago in this same thread (which incidentally should have also ended weeks ago).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430690

Case closed.


so what you're saying is that your "opinion" that you stated back then, should have been the last word. The end-all-be-all of the whole great debate. What arrogance. :eek:

And how does that make faith and science enemies? Teaching both theories seems VERY scientific to me. Only teaching one unproven theory is stacking the deck and that is not scientific at all.
ID is not and never will be a SCIENTIFIC theory it has absolutly no place in a sience class room

It belongs in a theology class

Fifth: "I have faith and thats worth more than knowledge". Very much a matter of opinion, my friend... I would have to argue that your statement was utterly wrong. In fact, if you think about it, faith REQUIRES knowledge... you wouldn't believe in 'god' if you had never encountered the concept...
If he puts greater significance on faith than on knowledge, and you disagree, for whatever reasons, that does not make his opinion "wrong." It is, after all, truly his opinion.

That faith requires knowledge of a concept is true. That that imports greater significance for knowledge is your opinion.

Intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific theory for one reason. It is not a theory in scientific terms. To be a theory, one would have to be able to prove or disprove it. The only way to disprove I.D. is to either ask God him/her/itself and disprove God. Both of which are supposedly impossible to confirm scientifically.

Besides, gravity is a theory, and the only people arguing that are nutcases.

And for this stuff, we have to stop taking it seriously. We should all declare ourselves not Atheists but Neoists, and we believe Keanu Reeves will save us all.

And how does that make faith and science enemies? Teaching both theories seems VERY scientific to me. Only teaching one unproven theory is stacking the deck and that is not scientific at all.

Intelligent Design isn't scientific, because it relies on an unfalsifiable premise. Thus, to teach it in science class, is to stretch the definition of 'science' beyond breaking point.

Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense of the word - since all of it's components are falsifiable. There is nothing wrong with teaching FLAWS in evolutionary theory - if you can find any... but actively teaching an unfalsifiable premise in opposition is ridiculous.

Further - why teach JUST Intelligent Design? If schools are going to have to teach unfalsifiable material in science class, does this eman there will now be course in Alien Abduction, or Santa Claus?

What about all the OTHER religions?

If he puts greater significance on faith than on knowledge, and you disagree, for whatever reasons, that does not make his opinion "wrong." It is, after all, truly his opinion.

That faith requires knowledge of a concept is true. That that imports greater significance for knowledge is your opinion.

I SAID that it was all opinion... and MINE would be that he/she is entirely wrong. For me, 'faith' can never replace 'knowledge'... and is, at best, a second-rate alternative. But, as I said.... it's opinion.

Regarding the other point, faith without knowledge is nothing... while knowledge without faith is still knowledge. In my book, that sets a certain significance on the one, that the other fails to achieve.

Intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific theory for one reason. It is not a theory in scientific terms. To be a theory, one would have to be able to prove or disprove it. The only way to disprove I.D. is to either ask God him/her/itself and disprove God. Both of which are supposedly impossible to confirm scientifically.
Intelligent Design can be countered simply and logically, by pointing out that the "complexity" and "beauty" in nature are evidence not of an intelligent designer but of an intelligent observer, one capable of putting two and two together.

I SAID that it was all opinion... and MINE would be that he/she is entirely wrong. For me, 'faith' can never replace 'knowledge'... and is, at best, a second-rate alternative. But, as I said.... it's opinion.
Alright; I just had a problem with the wording.

And how does that make faith and science enemies? Teaching both theories seems VERY scientific to me. Only teaching one unproven theory is stacking the deck and that is not scientific at all.
Don't be silly! ...Science class teaches MANY unproven theories, not just one. *wicked grin*

Intelligent Design can be countered simply and logically, by pointing out that the "complexity" and "beauty" in nature are evidence not of an intelligent designer but of an intelligent observer, one capable of putting two and two together.

You'd think it was that simple, wouldn't you? And, if such appeals failed, the simple fact that IT ISN"T SCIENCE should be enough to keep it out of 'science' classes...

I think they should start teaching Atheism in religion classes....

I have a question for you, Sanx.

If a religion contains contradictions, how can it be anything other than a looney's invention?
How about this:
If God is all-powerful, why did he let Jesus die for humanity rather than sorting the problem out himself? It's against the morals he created!

ID is not and never will be a SCIENTIFIC theory it has absolutly no place in a sience class room

It belongs in a theology class

it has as much place in a science class room as Darwin. The unproven fantasy that is Darwin's evolution is still being taught as fact in classrooms.

ID is not and never will be a SCIENTIFIC theory it has absolutly no place in a sience class room

It belongs in a theology class

Everyone says that ID is unscientific but thats not true. In every other instance where there is infomation stored and used in some degree or other, there is assumed intellegence behind it. For examle, cave paintings have always been assumed to be the work of aborigines or natives of another nature. Now the individual cell contains more infomation in its nuclues than all 30 volumes of the current Encylopedia Britanica. Its not random infomation, it is clearly structured and organised in an alphabet. Only a four lettered alphabet granted but an alphabet none the less. There is a language to the human genome, and we have only recently decoded it. DNA is the only instance where there is obvious vast quanitites of ordered and constructed infomation where there is no inclination to believe that an intellegence was behind it. DNA is far more complex than cave paintings ever are.

Intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific theory for one reason. It is not a theory in scientific terms. To be a theory, one would have to be able to prove or disprove it. The only way to disprove I.D. is to either ask God him/her/itself and disprove God. Both of which are supposedly impossible to confirm scientifically.

Besides, gravity is a theory, and the only people arguing that are nutcases.

And for this stuff, we have to stop taking it seriously. We should all declare ourselves not Atheists but Neoists, and we believe Keanu Reeves will save us all.

Well evidently in a lot of minds of evolutionists, evolution is also disprovable. Since the answer to all the missing links is and always will be "we just havn't found it yet" (anyone notice the similarity to WMD there?). So by your logic, evolution isn't a legitimate scientific theory either. So ban them BOTH from science classes and everyone can be happy.

it has as much place in a science class room as Darwin.


NO.

IT DOESN'T.

The 'rule' for teaching things in science class, should be that they follow the scientific method, and abide by scientific principles. "Intelligent Design" matches neither of the criteria.

"Intelligent Design" is just an attempt to pretend that there is some science backing Creationism - and, as such, should ONLY ever be taught in religious education classes.


The unproven fantasy that is Darwin's evolution is still being taught as fact in classrooms.

Do you not understand the requirements of science? Nothing can EVER be 'proven'.

Since you have sucha big issue against evolution, what exactly is wrong with it? And, HOW does Intelligent Design rectify that problem?

(Because, obviously, if Intelligent Design doesn't actually speak to a failing in Evolutionary theory, then it relly is just a blatant attempt by fundamentalists to force their mythology on a nation).

Intelligent Design isn't scientific, because it relies on an unfalsifiable premise. Thus, to teach it in science class, is to stretch the definition of 'science' beyond breaking point.

Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense of the word - since all of it's components are falsifiable. There is nothing wrong with teaching FLAWS in evolutionary theory - if you can find any... but actively teaching an unfalsifiable premise in opposition is ridiculous.

Further - why teach JUST Intelligent Design? If schools are going to have to teach unfalsifiable material in science class, does this eman there will now be course in Alien Abduction, or Santa Claus?

What about all the OTHER religions?

Intelligent Design is not about religion. The crafters of the ID theory did not use religion (any religion) as their model. The religious group did that after the fact.

Everyone says that ID is unscientific but thats not true. In every other instance where there is infomation stored and used in some degree or other, there is assumed intellegence behind it. For examle, cave paintings have always been assumed to be the work of aborigines or natives of another nature. Now the individual cell contains more infomation in its nuclues than all 30 volumes of the current Encylopedia Britanica. Its not random infomation, it is clearly structured and organised in an alphabet. Only a four lettered alphabet granted but an alphabet none the less. There is a language to the human genome, and we have only recently decoded it. DNA is the only instance where there is obvious vast quanitites of ordered and constructed infomation where there is no inclination to believe that an intellegence was behind it. DNA is far more complex than cave paintings ever are.

This is poppycock. Crystal lattices could be argued to 'hold information', since they accomodate deformations... and yet I don't hear the same claims being made. Are you saying that crystal lattice formations are ALSO evidence of god? If so - are you not just trying to cover the fact that information storage happens ALL THE TIME without design?

Drop sand particles. They land in a conical form, with an almost infinitely complex surface. Thus, they demonstrate order and complexity... thus, one could argue they store information. Do you argue that sand proves god?

The reason Intelligent Design is considered 'unscientific', is because it RELIES on an UNFALSIFIABLE premise. Which disqualifies it as 'science'.

Nothing to do with data storage... all about the assumptions.

Intelligent Design can be countered simply and logically, by pointing out that the "complexity" and "beauty" in nature are evidence not of an intelligent designer but of an intelligent observer, one capable of putting two and two together.

complexity and beauty is hardly the basis behind the theory. An intelligent observer might be evidenced by beauty, but complexity has to do with design.

Well evidently in a lot of minds of evolutionists, evolution is also disprovable. Since the answer to all the missing links is and always will be "we just havn't found it yet" (anyone notice the similarity to WMD there?). So by your logic, evolution isn't a legitimate scientific theory either. So ban them BOTH from science classes and everyone can be happy.
The difference is that you are ABLE to falsafy the theory

GOD is an un falsafiable proposition

it is precicly BECAUSE evolution is disprovable that it is a scientific theory
Thank you for proving my point

Intelligent Design is not about religion. The crafters of the ID theory did not use religion (any religion) as their model. The religious group did that after the fact.

I need a cite for that... where is your evidence.

It seems fairly obvious that Intelligent Design 'theory' must rely on an Intelligent Designer who predates creation. That is an unfalsifiable assumption... and equates to 'god', whether or not the original 'theorists' admitted their flawed assumption.

I need to see a source to back up this kind of speculation - because MOST of the people involved in pushing through the "I.D. in education" material THIS TIME, were the same people pushing "Creationism in education" a few years back.

I have a question for you, Sanx.

If a religion contains contradictions, how can it be anything other than a looney's invention?
How about this:
If God is all-powerful, why did he let Jesus die for humanity rather than sorting the problem out himself? It's against the morals he created!

no it isn't. The morals He created involved sacrifice to atone for sins. It was always that way. Jesus became the ULTIMATE sacrifice and forever removed the need for any more of them.

Life contains contradictions, does that make it a looney's invention?

complexity and beauty is hardly the basis behind the theory. An intelligent observer might be evidenced by beauty, but complexity has to do with design.

It is almost hard to believe how wrong you are.

Entropy is a tendency towards disorder, and disorder is a form of complexity. By your reckoning, entropy equates to design?

What about my 'pile of sand' in the above response? A geometric structure, with an intricately complex surface.... and yet it is formed by random elements.

Everyone says that ID is unscientific but thats not true. In every other instance where there is infomation stored and used in some degree or other, there is assumed intellegence behind it. For examle, cave paintings have always been assumed to be the work of aborigines or natives of another nature. Now the individual cell contains more infomation in its nuclues than all 30 volumes of the current Encylopedia Britanica. Its not random infomation, it is clearly structured and organised in an alphabet. Only a four lettered alphabet granted but an alphabet none the less. There is a language to the human genome, and we have only recently decoded it. DNA is the only instance where there is obvious vast quanitites of ordered and constructed infomation where there is no inclination to believe that an intellegence was behind it. DNA is far more complex than cave paintings ever are.
Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with ID being unscientific.
AS long as a hypothesis uses GOD anywhere in it that automatically makes the theory un-falsifiable precisely because god can not be disproved

Sorry but for it to be a SCIENTIFIC theory it has to at least have the ability to be falsifiable

Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with ID being unscientific.
AS long as a hypothesis uses GOD anywhere in it that automatically makes the theory un-falsifiable precisely because god can not be disproved

Sorry but for it to be a SCIENTIFIC theory it has to at least have the ability to be falsifiable

And, if you can't falsify it... it doesn't conform to the most basic scientific premise... and so, has NO PLACE in a 'science' classroom.

it has as much place in a science class room as Darwin. The unproven fantasy that is Darwin's evolution is still being taught as fact in classrooms.
But unlike GOD Darwin CAN be disproved

Don’t you get it you are making my case for me

To be scientific theory you have to be ABLE to prove it false

DARWIN can be proved false and has been that SHOWS that it was a scientific theory

Thank you for making my point

And, if you can't falsify it... it doesn't conform to the most basic scientific premise... and so, has NO PLACE in a 'science' classroom.
EXACTLY

Sheesh I mean every argument they make supports that

Every time they "disprove" Darwin PROVES exactly that it IS falsifiable

I don’t think they realize how astutely they are proving us right

127 pages of arguments, and nobody mentions Bertrand Russel???

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

a must read for everyone of any religious positioning, or lack thereof.

Here wickpedia’s description of the characteristics of a scientific theory


Characteristics
There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc.


GOD anywhere makes number 3 impossible as well as 4
Making whatever hypothesis that uses god NOT a scientific theory

NO.

IT DOESN'T.

The 'rule' for teaching things in science class, should be that they follow the scientific method, and abide by scientific principles. "Intelligent Design" matches neither of the criteria.

"Intelligent Design" is just an attempt to pretend that there is some science backing Creationism - and, as such, should ONLY ever be taught in religious education classes.



Do you not understand the requirements of science? Nothing can EVER be 'proven'.

Since you have sucha big issue against evolution, what exactly is wrong with it? And, HOW does Intelligent Design rectify that problem?

(Because, obviously, if Intelligent Design doesn't actually speak to a failing in Evolutionary theory, then it relly is just a blatant attempt by fundamentalists to force their mythology on a nation).

What, exactly is wrong with evolution is, there is no link whatsoever to prove man evolved from anything. It is a leap of faith (which you yourself cannot have) to believe the bones of what they call a primitive man changed over time to become what we are now. There is no evidence to support that. No Middle of the road man has been found. Javaman was a complete laugh. Evolutionists are searching for ONE answer and anything that does not meet that answer is disgarded. Very unscientific.

The coded instructions in DNA speak to the failing of Evolution. Irreducably complex entities speak to the failing of evolution. The origin of life speaks to the failing of evolution. I know I know you're gonna tell me again how evolution isn't about origin of life. But it IS! Without the origin of life, everything about evolution goes out the window. Without the first spark, none of the rest matters. How can we make a theory on how we began and what we became if we don't have a clue how we began? I don't discount evolution completely. I acknowledge the intraspecies evolving in dogs and whatnot. But to decide reptiles became birds and apes became human, there is no proof. The Cambrian explosion speaks to the failing of evolution. (that one got covered up with "a huge leap in complexity". like THAT explained it.) There are billions of organisms living on this planet. To suggest that they ALL came from one common ancestor and they ALL were separated into different environments for millions of years so that they had to evolve differently than their neighbors is ludicrous and requires the kind of faith of which you refuse to commit.

What, exactly is wrong with evolution is, there is no link whatsoever to prove man evolved from anything. It is a leap of faith (which you yourself cannot have) to believe the bones of what they call a primitive man changed over time to become what we are now. There is no evidence to support that. No Middle of the road man has been found. Javaman was a complete laugh. Evolutionists are searching for ONE answer and anything that does not meet that answer is disgarded. Very unscientific.

The coded instructions in DNA speak to the failing of Evolution. Irreducably complex entities speak to the failing of evolution. The origin of life speaks to the failing of evolution. I know I know you're gonna tell me again how evolution isn't about origin of life. But it IS! Without the origin of life, everything about evolution goes out the window. Without the first spark, none of the rest matters. How can we make a theory on how we began and what we became if we don't have a clue how we began? I don't discount evolution completely. I acknowledge the intraspecies evolving in dogs and whatnot. But to decide reptiles became birds and apes became human, there is no proof. The Cambrian explosion speaks to the failing of evolution. (that one got covered up with "a huge leap in complexity". like THAT explained it.) There are billions of organisms living on this planet. To suggest that they ALL came from one common ancestor and they ALL were separated into different environments for millions of years so that they had to evolve differently than their neighbors is ludicrous and requires the kind of faith of which you refuse to commit.


And all that does not make ID a scientific theory :p

This is poppycock. Crystal lattices could be argued to 'hold information', since they accomodate deformations... and yet I don't hear the same claims being made. Are you saying that crystal lattice formations are ALSO evidence of god? If so - are you not just trying to cover the fact that information storage happens ALL THE TIME without design?

Drop sand particles. They land in a conical form, with an almost infinitely complex surface. Thus, they demonstrate order and complexity... thus, one could argue they store information. Do you argue that sand proves god?

The reason Intelligent Design is considered 'unscientific', is because it RELIES on an UNFALSIFIABLE premise. Which disqualifies it as 'science'.

Nothing to do with data storage... all about the assumptions.

crystal lattices and sand particles are not determining the fate of life. DNA speaks against evolution and the written instructions inside it are NOT random drops of sand. They are precise and structured.

The difference is that you are ABLE to falsafy the theory

GOD is an un falsafiable proposition

it is precicly BECAUSE evolution is disprovable that it is a scientific theory
Thank you for proving my point

I meant unfalsifiable

I need a cite for that... where is your evidence.

It seems fairly obvious that Intelligent Design 'theory' must rely on an Intelligent Designer who predates creation. That is an unfalsifiable assumption... and equates to 'god', whether or not the original 'theorists' admitted their flawed assumption.

I need to see a source to back up this kind of speculation - because MOST of the people involved in pushing through the "I.D. in education" material THIS TIME, were the same people pushing "Creationism in education" a few years back.

Don't look to the people "pushing it through" look to the men that theorized it.

What, exactly is wrong with evolution is, there is no link whatsoever to prove man evolved from anything. It is a leap of faith (which you yourself cannot have) to believe the bones of what they call a primitive man changed over time to become what we are now. There is no evidence to support that. No Middle of the road man has been found. Javaman was a complete laugh. Evolutionists are searching for ONE answer and anything that does not meet that answer is disgarded. Very unscientific.

The coded instructions in DNA speak to the failing of Evolution. Irreducably complex entities speak to the failing of evolution. The origin of life speaks to the failing of evolution. I know I know you're gonna tell me again how evolution isn't about origin of life. But it IS! Without the origin of life, everything about evolution goes out the window. Without the first spark, none of the rest matters. How can we make a theory on how we began and what we became if we don't have a clue how we began? I don't discount evolution completely. I acknowledge the intraspecies evolving in dogs and whatnot. But to decide reptiles became birds and apes became human, there is no proof. The Cambrian explosion speaks to the failing of evolution. (that one got covered up with "a huge leap in complexity". like THAT explained it.) There are billions of organisms living on this planet. To suggest that they ALL came from one common ancestor and they ALL were separated into different environments for millions of years so that they had to evolve differently than their neighbors is ludicrous and requires the kind of faith of which you refuse to commit.

A whole load of rhetoric, and no evidence, my friend.

1) Irreducable complexity is flawed. From time to time, someone suggests that a new structure is 'irreducably complex', and, each time, it is shown that there are possible reductions. Thus, Irreducable Complexity is a false premise.

2) How does 'coded DNA' speak to evolution being false? Evolution involves the transfer of data, and so does DNA encoding... why do you see the two as incompatible. Where is your evidence that complexity cannot co-exist with evolution?

3) Origins of life are NOT evolution. You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument, because it shows that you CAN NOT abandon, even for the sake of discussion, one 'creation' process that creates all things as they exist now.

The origins of life are unimportant to evolution... 'evolutionists' don't care WHERE the first life came from... it could have been aliens, meteorites, abiogenesis, goblins, 'god'... it doesn't matter. The origins do NOT affect the process.

4) The Cambrian Explosion is not peer-reviewed. It is ONLY even considered a 'theory' among those who call themselves 'Creationist Scientists'. Show me evidence that represents it as a SERIOUS theory.

5) If you honestly can not see the evidence that suggests birds and reptiles may be (or may have been) related forms, then you are choosing not to see. There truly IS a wealth of evidence out there.

6) Who said ALL of life came from ONE ancestor? You are trying to apply the twisted logic of scripture to fossil evidence?

7) Again - you choose not to see evidence, if you think there are no remains that suggest man and his transition from earlier forms.


How can you claim that evolution is flawed, when you have not even researched the material honestly?

I meant unfalsifiable
But its not ... it may be HARD to falsafy but unlike god it is possible

It is almost hard to believe how wrong you are.

Entropy is a tendency towards disorder, and disorder is a form of complexity. By your reckoning, entropy equates to design?

What about my 'pile of sand' in the above response? A geometric structure, with an intricately complex surface.... and yet it is formed by random elements.

I don't know about your pile of sand. When I drop sand, it scatters randomly all over the floor. I don't see anything geometricly structured about it. Disorder is not complexity. I guess you could have a complex mess, but life isn't about complex mess, its about complex precision.

But unlike GOD Darwin CAN be disproved

Don’t you get it you are making my case for me

To be scientific theory you have to be ABLE to prove it false

DARWIN can be proved false and has been that SHOWS that it was a scientific theory

Thank you for making my point

Darwin has been proven false, evolution cannot be. Evolution is as unfalsifiable as anything. When the answer can ALWAYS be, we just havn't found it yet, it is NO DIFFERENT than saying well it was designed that way.

"Intelligent Design" is just an attempt to pretend that there is some science backing Creationism - and, as such, should ONLY ever be taught in religious education classes.
I disagree. I think it should be taught in art appreciation class.

crystal lattices and sand particles are not determining the fate of life. DNA speaks against evolution and the written instructions inside it are NOT random drops of sand. They are precise and structured.

This is hollow rhetoric.

DNA does not determine the fate of life, unless it is active in a lifeform... and even then the effect MAY be negligible (see chimeric DNA).

DNA is only ONE factor of a living organism. No matter how good your DNA is, when you are dead, you are dead.

HOW does DNA 'speak against evolution'?

STOP repeating the same simplistic platitudes, and EXPLAIN or provide evidence.

HOW is DNA any more 'precise and structured' that the random tri-halomethanes that are formed when bleach reacts with organic matter? How is it more 'precise and structured' than the pile of sand I described?

I'm sorry to say it, friend, but you sound like you are just repeating buzzwords from some ID apologist website... which would explain why your arguments have so little substance...

Oh - and regarding crystal lattices... certain crystal structures SEEM to fulfil the requirements for life... if you allow a little leeway for the mechainsms to be different to carbon-based lifeforms. Since a silicate lifeform IS a theoretical possibility, HOW can you say that crystal lattice structures are 'not determining the fate of life'?

Here wickpedia’s description of the characteristics of a scientific theory



GOD anywhere makes number 3 impossible as well as 4
Making whatever hypothesis that uses god NOT a scientific theory

ID does not specify God (or gods).

And all that does not make ID a scientific theory :p

No but it says evolution is unscientific as well.

I don't know about your pile of sand. When I drop sand, it scatters randomly all over the floor. I don't see anything geometricly structured about it. Disorder is not complexity. I guess you could have a complex mess, but life isn't about complex mess, its about complex precision.

Why think in such small terms?

What happens AFTER it scatters across the floor, when you CONTINUE adding sand?

Disorder IS complexity... if order is simple and ordered... and WHY isn't life about complex mess? Just because you say so? Have you ever watched weather patterns moving? Do you understand Brownian Motion? Have you heard of Entropy?

If life IS anything, it very much IS about complex messes.

Another example of the structure and complexity of chaos - river beds...

Why is the gravel always at the bottom, then the finer gravel, etc... up until the lightest, finest silt at the top, where the water runs? That is ordered, and even complex... yet it occurs due to randomness.

No but it says evolution is unscientific as well.

You are grasping at straws.

But, even assuming you were right....

Even if Evolution was proved faulty...

That STILL doesn't justify teaching fairystories in science class.

This is poppycock. Crystal lattices could be argued to 'hold information', since they accomodate deformations... and yet I don't hear the same claims being made.

Drop sand particles. They land in a conical form, with an almost infinitely complex surface. Thus, they demonstrate order and complexity... thus, one could argue they store information. Do you argue that sand proves god?

Crystal formations are merely repetive paterns. They are nowhere near the level of complexity of DNA. The reason that these things form in the way they do is that they fall that way acording to the laws of nature. Natural forces such as gravity can be said to be at work in your sand example. No natural forces have EVER been observed to create the levels of complexity required to justify something like DNA.

You are grasping at straws.

But, even assuming you were right....

Even if Evolution was proved faulty...

That STILL doesn't justify teaching fairystories in science class.

The logic goes that is evolution is unscientific yet is still taught in scinece classes and Creationism is unscientific then it too has a right to be taugt in science classes. In this case, I'm not saying whether either one of them are scientific or not, but that is where the logic comes from Grave.

ID does not specify God (or gods).

Then, you admit the universe could be formed without god?

Another example of the structure and complexity of chaos - river beds...

Why is the gravel always at the bottom, then the finer gravel, etc... up until the lightest, finest silt at the top, where the water runs? That is ordered, and even complex... yet it occurs due to randomness.

Its not complex, its a simple thing, nowhere near the compexity of DNA. Its just a seriers of errosions which happen over time. There is nothing which can be said to be a natural force which can explain the creation of something so vastly complex as DNA and life.

Then, you admit the universe could be formed without god?

ID specifies intellegence. Now the question of wheter or not that intellegence is God is another matter, but we can establish by logical means that there is some form of intellegence behind DNA.

ID specifies intellegence. Now the question of wheter or not that intellegence is God is another matter, but we can establish by logical means that there is some form of intellegence behind DNA.
Which still makes the creator external to the universe

Either way unfalsafiable

A whole load of rhetoric, and no evidence, my friend.

1) Irreducable complexity is flawed. From time to time, someone suggests that a new structure is 'irreducably complex', and, each time, it is shown that there are possible reductions. Thus, Irreducable Complexity is a false premise.

2) How does 'coded DNA' speak to evolution being false? Evolution involves the transfer of data, and so does DNA encoding... why do you see the two as incompatible. Where is your evidence that complexity cannot co-exist with evolution?

3) Origins of life are NOT evolution. You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument, because it shows that you CAN NOT abandon, even for the sake of discussion, one 'creation' process that creates all things as they exist now.

The origins of life are unimportant to evolution... 'evolutionists' don't care WHERE the first life came from... it could have been aliens, meteorites, abiogenesis, goblins, 'god'... it doesn't matter. The origins do NOT affect the process.

4) The Cambrian Explosion is not peer-reviewed. It is ONLY even considered a 'theory' among those who call themselves 'Creationist Scientists'. Show me evidence that represents it as a SERIOUS theory.

5) If you honestly can not see the evidence that suggests birds and reptiles may be (or may have been) related forms, then you are choosing not to see. There truly IS a wealth of evidence out there.

6) Who said ALL of life came from ONE ancestor? You are trying to apply the twisted logic of scripture to fossil evidence?

7) Again - you choose not to see evidence, if you think there are no remains that suggest man and his transition from earlier forms.


How can you claim that evolution is flawed, when you have not even researched the material honestly?

1) prove it

2) DNA is a written language. It is the instructions on how a cell is built. It would have had to be in existance BEFORE evolution started changing things.

3) SURE the origins affects the process. It absolutely affects the process. IT determines what the FIRST STEP in the process is to be. If we don't know what we started AS, how can we start deducing what we became? That's like saying we ended up with a cadillac but it doesn't matter than the first component was actually a chicken.

4) I don't have anything to back me up on this one.

5) Nothing credible is out there

6) how is this scripture logic? Evolution is all about the "common ancestor" which can only be the preverbial "simple one celled organism".

7) like what?

The logic goes that is evolution is unscientific yet is still taught in scinece classes and Creationism is unscientific then it too has a right to be taugt in science classes. In this case, I'm not saying whether either one of them are scientific or not, but that is where the logic comes from Grave.

Evolution has the POSSIBILITY of being proven false.

Thus - it can be WRONG, but that is not the SAME as unscientific.

Creationism and Intelligent Design BOTH rely on the presence of an unquantifiable, and unfalsifiable entity or intelligence.

Thus, neither is scientific.

The two things are not equal.

God has no place in science.

crystal lattices and sand particles are not determining the fate of life. DNA speaks against evolution and the written instructions inside it are NOT random drops of sand. They are precise and structured.
DNA is not determining the fate of life. We have free will.

Crystal formations are merely repetive paterns. They are nowhere near the level of complexity of DNA. The reason that these things form in the way they do is that they fall that way acording to the laws of nature. Natural forces such as gravity can be said to be at work in your sand example. No natural forces have EVER been observed to create the levels of complexity required to justify something like DNA.

I assume you know pretty much nothing about crystal formations.

You know what happens at a cleavage? You know how crystals 'migrate' deformations?

Natural forces can ALSO explain DNA. Just because you don't understand how, doesn't make a ghostly-guy-in-the-sky a better answer.

I assume you know pretty much nothing about crystal formations.

You know what happens at a cleavage? You know how crystals 'migrate' deformations?

Natural forces can ALSO explain DNA. Just because you don't understand how, doesn't make a ghostly-guy-in-the-sky a better answer.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.


:) hehehe

Its not complex, its a simple thing, nowhere near the compexity of DNA. Its just a seriers of errosions which happen over time. There is nothing which can be said to be a natural force which can explain the creation of something so vastly complex as DNA and life.

Consecutive erosion might explain WHERE silt comes from... but has nothing to do with why riverbeds are ALWAYS settled lightest particles on top, heaviest below.

DNA is just a molecule... just a big, tricky molecule. Natural forces make and break molecules all the time. What makes DNA so special?

ID specifies intellegence. Now the question of wheter or not that intellegence is God is another matter, but we can establish by logical means that there is some form of intellegence behind DNA.

That's two people, now, in the same thread, that have made the same kind of hollow rhetoric statement, and yet cannot, or will not, support it.

SHOW us the LOGIC that proves there is 'some form of intelligence behind DNA'???

If you can show me unassailable LOGIC, I'll convert on the spot.

Why think in such small terms?

What happens AFTER it scatters across the floor, when you CONTINUE adding sand?

Disorder IS complexity... if order is simple and ordered... and WHY isn't life about complex mess? Just because you say so? Have you ever watched weather patterns moving? Do you understand Brownian Motion? Have you heard of Entropy?

If life IS anything, it very much IS about complex messes.

Another example of the structure and complexity of chaos - river beds...

Why is the gravel always at the bottom, then the finer gravel, etc... up until the lightest, finest silt at the top, where the water runs? That is ordered, and even complex... yet it occurs due to randomness.

there is nothing random about that, that is water pressure and gravel weight.
When dealing with an organism, complex mess doesn't work. We're not talking about the weather and random outside occurances. We're talking about the organisms that live on this planet. There is nothing random or chaotic about them. They are structured, ordered and extrememly precise in how they are built and how they operate.

You are grasping at straws.

But, even assuming you were right....

Even if Evolution was proved faulty...

That STILL doesn't justify teaching fairystories in science class.

Teaching proven faulty theories as fact is exactly the SAME as teaching fairystories.

Crystal formations are merely repetive paterns. They are nowhere near the level of complexity of DNA. The reason that these things form in the way they do is that they fall that way acording to the laws of nature. Natural forces such as gravity can be said to be at work in your sand example. No natural forces have EVER been observed to create the levels of complexity required to justify something like DNA.
"I don't know how DNA formed," is precisely the beginning of a scientific exploration.

"DNA is too complex to have been formed in any other way than by an intelligence," is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration.

Then, you admit the universe could be formed without god?

My statement wasn't an admission of anything. But I'll give there's room for discussion and research into it.

1) prove it

2) DNA is a written language. It is the instructions on how a cell is built. It would have had to be in existance BEFORE evolution started changing things.

3) SURE the origins affects the process. It absolutely affects the process. IT determines what the FIRST STEP in the process is to be. If we don't know what we started AS, how can we start deducing what we became? That's like saying we ended up with a cadillac but it doesn't matter than the first component was actually a chicken.

4) I don't have anything to back me up on this one.

5) Nothing credible is out there

6) how is this scripture logic? Evolution is all about the "common ancestor" which can only be the preverbial "simple one celled organism".

7) like what?

1) You claim Irreducable Complexity is a thorn in the side of evolution. Sorry, friend, but the burden of proof is on you.

2) DNA is NOT a written langauge. It is iterations of complex molcules. It doesn't have to be there 'before evolution'... what a ridiculous thing to say... it only has to be there when carbon-based-life commences, since it is the most basic life molecule. The very first DNA molecule would ALSO be the first stage of evolution.

3) No. Only in scripture do you have to unite origin and form. Evolution doesn't care if life fell off space-rocks, or formed around deep-sea vents. So long as it started, there can be evolution. End of discussion.

4) You don't have anything to back you on ANY of the points.

5) You haven't looked.

6) Evolution is all about the fittest surviving. Scripture is all about common ancestors. There doesn't have to have been ONE lifeform at the 'start' of evolution... there could have been trillions. You are building a priomordial strawman.

7) Again, you haven't looked.


It seems that, in order to follow non-Evolutionary tracks, you have to refuse to investigate the evidence of a hundred years or more of research... how can that qualify as objective?

Teaching proven faulty theories as fact is exactly the SAME as teaching fairystories.
Nope they can be an awesome example of the power of scientific theory … sometimes teaching mistakes that people made in the past is the best learning tool (assuming that it is incorrect)

Teaching proven faulty theories as fact is exactly the SAME as teaching fairystories.

Not at all, if the science is proven faulty, it must have been proven faulty through scientific means.

God cannot ever be assessed through scientific means... therefore, in the context of scince lessons, Intelligent Design has the same value as "Snow White".

There is nothing random or chaotic about them. They are structured, ordered and extrememly precise in how they are built and how they operate.
...and how they break down, with sickness and old age...

"I don't know how DNA formed," is precisely the beginning of a scientific exploration.

"DNA is too complex to have been formed in any other way than by an intelligence," is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration.

Exactly. :)

1) Irreducable complexity is flawed. From time to time, someone suggests that a new structure is 'irreducably complex', and, each time, it is shown that there are possible reductions. Thus, Irreducable Complexity is a false premise.

Your going to have to provide an example of a predecsor to the gene as something even remotely complex that has been proven to come from natural forces


2) How does 'coded DNA' speak to evolution being false? Evolution involves the transfer of data, and so does DNA encoding... why do you see the two as incompatible. Where is your evidence that complexity cannot co-exist with evolution?

Two flaws here

1) As I have stated, in every other instance involving a) a language and b) use of a languge to describe or explain something then there is an assumed intellgence behind it EXCEPT in the case of biology. There is nothing in the natural world that demonstrates that naturally this kind of complexity can arrise naturally

2) Never ever in scientific history has there ever been a recorded instance where any life form has GAINED genetic infomation. There are recorded instances where it has changed (mutation), but never gained


3) Origins of life are NOT evolution. You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument, because it shows that you CAN NOT abandon, even for the sake of discussion, one 'creation' process that creates all things as they exist now.

The origins of life are unimportant to evolution... 'evolutionists' don't care WHERE the first life came from... it could have been aliens, meteorites, abiogenesis, goblins, 'god'... it doesn't matter. The origins do NOT affect the process.

Acutally it does, seing as there are no examples of genetic infomation being gained which is what is required for the process to begin. Furthermore, if you cant explain life's origins naturally then you have no case for saying they are impossible supernaturally.


4) The Cambrian Explosion is not peer-reviewed. It is ONLY even considered a 'theory' among those who call themselves 'Creationist Scientists'. Show me evidence that represents it as a SERIOUS theory.

You cant deal with the case so you resort to attacking the credability of the evidence. Flawed tatics


5) If you honestly can not see the evidence that suggests birds and reptiles may be (or may have been) related forms, then you are choosing not to see. There truly IS a wealth of evidence out there.

There is also a wealth of evidence to suggest that your evidence is flawed. Have you looked into that? I would demonstrate further but I dont have time


6) Who said ALL of life came from ONE ancestor? You are trying to apply the twisted logic of scripture to fossil evidence?

You are aware are you not of the mind boggling improbabilities of life ever occuring on this planet at all. Its something like 10 to the power of over 400. Now the normal countor arguement to that is that the universe is so big that it could happen somewhere, which is ok. But your not going to be able to convince me that it could happen twice on the same planet. Life must logically have only one ancestor if you believe evolution.


7) Again - you choose not to see evidence, if you think there are no remains that suggest man and his transition from earlier forms.


No proven remains. All remains so far (Peking man, Piltdown man, Neanderthal man) have been rejected as either fakes or having cranial structres too large. The missing link is still missing.

2) DNA is NOT a written langauge. It is iterations of complex molcules. It doesn't have to be there 'before evolution'... what a ridiculous thing to say... it only has to be there when carbon-based-life commences, since it is the most basic life molecule. The very first DNA molecule would ALSO be the first stage of evolution.
You know, this also makes we wonder if the metaphors journalists and editorialists sometimes employ to describe complex processes aren't going over some people's heads.

:(

Intelligent Design has the same value as "Snow White".

No it doesnt. It has far more. As I have said, there is nothing aproching the complexity of DNA that has been found to be created by natural forced. DNA itself in a single cell is the language that is used to explain more infomation than exists in 30 encyclopedias. Its a massive ammount of infomation, in a language form designed to explain/describe/instruct something. There is no reason to suggest it does not have an intellegence behind it. To say otherwise is to believe that cave paintings arrose naturally

there is nothing random about that, that is water pressure and gravel weight.


If that were ALL there were to it, the material wouldn't sort, because it would never move. You are missing something.


When dealing with an organism, complex mess doesn't work. We're not talking about the weather and random outside occurances. We're talking about the organisms that live on this planet. There is nothing random or chaotic about them. They are structured, ordered and extrememly precise in how they are built and how they operate.

Mutation. Chimera. Entropy. Genetic abberation. Birth defects. Disability. Short-sightedness. Teratagenic deformity.

If you think there is nothing random or chaotic about how organisms live on this planet, you just haven't looked.

Lifeforms are structured, ordered and precise BECAUSE of evolution.

If 'God' really were the architect of all creation, even the abberant and inexact would be equal to the precise... because 'god' doesn't rely on SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

Whether you realise it or not, the precision of life, is the best evidence for no creator.

No it doesnt. It has far more. As I have said, there is nothing aproching the complexity of DNA that has been found to be created by natural forced. DNA itself in a single cell is the language that is used to explain more infomation than exists in 30 encyclopedias. Its a massive ammount of infomation, in a language form designed to explain/describe/instruct something. There is no reason to suggest it does not have an intellegence behind it. To say otherwise is to believe that cave paintings arrose naturally
And through all that it still = snow white in its ability to contribute to a SCIENTIFIC theory

good job

Which still makes the creator external to the universe

Either way unfalsafiable

and undenyable

and undenyable
It may be undeniable

Still makes it non-scientific

Edit actualy thanks being unable to falsafy it or "deny" it shows EXACTLY why any theory using it as a premice is automaticaly un scientific

Thanks again

there is nothing random about that, that is water pressure and gravel weight.
When dealing with an organism, complex mess doesn't work. We're not talking about the weather and random outside occurances. We're talking about the organisms that live on this planet. There is nothing random or chaotic about them. They are structured, ordered and extrememly precise in how they are built and how they operate.
The weather is no more or less random than the riverbed.

There is randomness in humanity, especially in how we exercise our free will.
There is much chaos in man, in our irrational and illogical ways.
There is also order and structure, society and building.

We are not free of randomness.

And through all that it still = snow white in its ability to contribute to a SCIENTIFIC theory

It can be falsifiable insofar as scinetists can find a natural, explainable force which could create such complexity

No it doesnt. It has far more. As I have said, there is nothing aproching the complexity of DNA that has been found to be created by natural forces.
Well, except DNA itself.

It can be falsifiable insofar as scinetists can find a natural, explainable force which could create such complexity
But with ID you can always say "but god created the natural force"

Which is exactly what makes it unfalsafiable

That's two people, now, in the same thread, that have made the same kind of hollow rhetoric statement, and yet cannot, or will not, support it.

SHOW us the LOGIC that proves there is 'some form of intelligence behind DNA'???

If you can show me unassailable LOGIC, I'll convert on the spot.

I can't prove it. I'm not a scientist. But you demand proof on something that defies evolution but you don't seem to be nearly as demanding about evolution itself. If there were unassailable proof anywhere, the great debate would be over wouldn't it? I demand unassailable proof that DNA can be reached through random chance.

And I'm not interested in your conversion, personally....although I'd congratulate you if you did. ;)

I have a question: is this talk about DNA being unnatural related to the proposition of Intelligent Design?

Look, i think i've had just about enouigh of this!

People, please, you aren't going to convince each other of anything. the longer this goes on, the more like little kids it gets.

please, shut the hell up about all of it!

But with ID you can always say "but god created the natural force"

Which is exactly what makes it unfalsafiable

Only insofar as you can prove the natural force is also irriducably complex

Look, i think i've had just about enouigh of this!

People, please, you aren't going to convince each other of anything. the longer this goes on, the more like little kids it gets.

please, shut the hell up about all of it!
This is a debate forum … if you don’t enjoy debating feel free not to participate

I can't prove it. I'm not a scientist. But you demand proof on something that defies evolution but you don't seem to be nearly as demanding about evolution itself. If there were unassailable proof anywhere, the great debate would be over wouldn't it? I demand unassailable proof that DNA can be reached through random chance.
I think he's just asking you to point to a link that explains it.

Look, i think i've had just about enouigh of this!

People, please, you aren't going to convince each other of anything. the longer this goes on, the more like little kids it gets.

please, shut the hell up about all of it!
Yo. You don't want to read this thread, just click the X in the corner of your browser. ;)

3) No. Only in scripture do you have to unite origin and form. Evolution doesn't care if life fell off space-rocks, or formed around deep-sea vents. So long as it started, there can be evolution. End of discussion.



Evolution may not care how life got here, but it certainly better care what form it was in.

Evolution may not care how life got here, but it certainly better care what form it was in.
Why?

Originally Posted by Willamena
"I don't know how DNA formed," is precisely the beginning of a scientific exploration.

"DNA is too complex to have been formed in any other way than by an intelligence," is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration.


Exactly. :)

"I don't know how DNA formed but I'm sure there wasn't an intelligence involved" is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration either.

Originally Posted by Willamena




"I don't know how DNA formed but I'm sure there wasn't an intelligence involved" is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration either.

That’s not something scientists are doing

Being limited to science means being limited to falsifiable propositions so they start searching within the falsifiable

Or supposed to be doing …

Originally Posted by Willamena
"I don't know how DNA formed," is precisely the beginning of a scientific exploration.

"DNA is too complex to have been formed in any other way than by an intelligence," is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration.

"I don't know how DNA formed but I'm sure there wasn't an intelligence involved" is precisely not the beginning of a scientific exploration either.
Ah, but if the intelligence is God, that makes all the difference.

"I don't know how DNA formed but I'm sure there wasn't a god involved," can still be scientific, since God is uniquely unfalsifiable.

Personally, I don't believe in god as an intelligence, as we know intelligence.

But with ID you can always say "but god created the natural force"

Which is exactly what makes it unfalsafiable

and with evolution you can always say "we just havn't found it yet". Same unfalsifiable value.

Look, i think i've had just about enouigh of this!

People, please, you aren't going to convince each other of anything. the longer this goes on, the more like little kids it gets.

please, shut the hell up about all of it!

If you've had enough...go away.

and with evolution you can always say "we just havn't found it yet". Same unfalsifiable value.
No, different. God is unfalsifiable because we will never him in the physical world, we can only find him by searching with our hearts.

If he is something beyond space and time, and if he is also, somehow, omnipresent existing everywhere and everywhen at once, then we will never find him.

No it doesnt. It has far more. As I have said, there is nothing aproching the complexity of DNA that has been found to be created by natural forced. DNA itself in a single cell is the language that is used to explain more infomation than exists in 30 encyclopedias. Its a massive ammount of infomation, in a language form designed to explain/describe/instruct something. There is no reason to suggest it does not have an intellegence behind it. To say otherwise is to believe that cave paintings arrose naturally

How do you justify pairing completely un-similar things?

Let me make it real simple. DNA is organic molecules. They are not 'encoded information', so much as self-replicating chemical machines.

A cave painting is an attempt by someone to make the implicit explicit. DNA is a mechanism for perpetuation of DNA.

They both have letters in their names.. that's about where the similarity stops.

Oh - and by the way - "there is no reason to suggest it does not" is NOT a valid logical premise.

and with evolution you can always say "we just havn't found it yet". Same unfalsifiable value.
Wrong unlike god there is a limit to matter and the contents of the universe
It may be hard but you CAN falsify it

Edit and by doing so scientists would be turning it into a bad theory but even bad theories are that … theories

Why?


like I said before, its like starting with a chicken and ending with a cadillac. Somewhere, someone's full of shit. If the theory isn't concerned with what form life started, how can it hope to explain what it became? I mean we all know what the end result is already, we dont' need evolution for that.

No, different. God is unfalsifiable because we will never him in the physical world, we can only find him by searching with our hearts.

If he is something beyond space and time, and if he is also, somehow, omnipresent existing everywhere and everywhen at once, then we will never find him.

You will if you try *my turn for wicked grin*

It can be falsifiable insofar as scinetists can find a natural, explainable force which could create such complexity

So - what you are saying is... the way you prove Intelligent Design... is by proving it wasn't designed intelligently?

Are you shooting your own troops, just to increase your bodycount?

like I said before, its like starting with a chicken and ending with a cadillac. Somewhere, someone's full of shit. If the theory isn't concerned with what form life started, how can it hope to explain what it became? I mean we all know what the end result is already, we dont' need evolution for that.
I see. But evolution just looks at the steps along the way, it is not concerned with anything but segments of population. If I understand it, the theories that arise about each segment's formation into the next segment are based on empirical evidence, i.e. things they found. It's like building a jigsaw puzzle; you're not expected to know the whole picture until all the pieces are found.

The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

And the same could be said for scientific claims, as well. There were several good explanations for the movements of the cosmos when man first accurately plotted their movements, but it was until assumption was placed aside, and the theory fit only undeniable facts did we develop a theory that the religiou community stopped persecuting for.(see: Galileo, heliocentrism)

Collecting data is the key, and as far as science is concerned, Darwin excelled at this. Regardless of his conclusions, his efforts are still commendable. You cannot say because there is a missing link, no conclusion is sound.

For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. In fact, 10 million points can still be described by an infinite variety of equations and curves.

Enter Occam's Razor and the principle of uncertainty maximization. It is always most prudent for progress to infer that the model that minimizes the number of addition assumtions will likely also be found to already fit data yet to be applied to the model.


or something like that, it's been a while since i took a general system theory class.

The fact is, even if we collect every bit of data, that's not nearly enough to prove a damn thing. You can't even prove that you exist! (although "congnito ergo sum" is enough to prove to yourself that you exist)

Oh - and by the way - "there is no reason to suggest it does not" is NOT a valid logical premise.

Funny, I'm pretty sure you've used this line often yourself. ;)

So - what you are saying is... the way you prove Intelligent Design... is by proving it wasn't designed intelligently?

Are you shooting your own troops, just to increase your bodycount?
No he is trying to prove that it is falsifiable ... and not succeeding lol

Collecting data is the key, and as far as science is concerned, Darwin excelled at this. Regardless of his conclusions, his efforts are still commendable. You cannot say because there is a missing link, no conclusion is sound.



Why not? Darwin said so himself.

The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
LOL!

I can't prove it. I'm not a scientist. But you demand proof on something that defies evolution but you don't seem to be nearly as demanding about evolution itself. If there were unassailable proof anywhere, the great debate would be over wouldn't it? I demand unassailable proof that DNA can be reached through random chance.

And I'm not interested in your conversion, personally....although I'd congratulate you if you did. ;)

I am a scientist...it's what I do. I don't accept evolution blindly, I accept evolution because it is the best explanation, that fits the most facts... Kind of a 'greatest good, for the greatest number' deal. I have been reading the subject for a couple of decades now, and have found no serious flaws in the fundamental premise.

You claim there are such flaws - I would like to see them.

If you can't back it up, retract it.

Why not? Darwin said so himself.

he spoke of a final conclusion. every conclusion we could possibly make is an intermediate.
your best attempt at a conclusion you make based on (most likely) incomplete data will invariable help you refine your position.

like I said before, its like starting with a chicken and ending with a cadillac. Somewhere, someone's full of shit. If the theory isn't concerned with what form life started, how can it hope to explain what it became? I mean we all know what the end result is already, we dont' need evolution for that.

What is it about the Creationist camp, that they always try to convince everyone else that evolution means bananas turning into fish... or chickens to cadillacs?

What is it about the Creationist camp, that they always try to convince everyone else that evolution means bananas turning into fish... or chickens to cadillacs?


agreed
although i'm still holding onto my copper pennies hoping they'll become gold some day

Funny, I'm pretty sure you've used this line often yourself. ;)

If you click on my name in the left-hand column, you can do a search on my last 100 posts.

Good luck.

agreed
although i'm still holding onto my copper pennies hoping they'll become gold some day

Wait... that happens in the Creationist camp? I could be persuaded to rethink my postition....

I don't know what to believe. I know there is something more to life, a lot of Hindu beliefs click with me. I'll be honest, I don't know all the details of Christianity. We had a debate in Anthropology Creation vs. Evolution and I took neither side. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers or live my life the way a book tells me to. The people for evolution presented many strong arguments and all the Creationists would do was quote passages from the bible or say "he's god, he can do anything"... I wasn't impressed... BUT what else could they say, really? I didn't read through all 133 posts of this thread but I'd like to hear a Creationists arguement as to why they believe in God. There's no logical argument for it, just like most great things in life.

What is it about the Creationist camp, that they always try to convince everyone else that evolution means bananas turning into fish... or chickens to cadillacs?



that's not what I said. My point was, if your theory doesn't CARE that it starts with a chicken, only that you've ended with a caddy with no regards to that something in there MUST be wrong, then your theory isn't working properly. If you have no care what form life began with, how are you gonna make theories on what it did after that?

This man has already said he is not a scientist, so trying to lure him into a debate over an issue in biology that is currently under debate at the highest levels is quite frankly sad, pathetic, and miserable.
Ok, let us look at a supernatural creation of the universe in contrast to a natural creation of the universe, from a Christian perspective.
Supernatural Creation:
The first step of this is creation of matter. For many reasons, which are another discussion in and of themselves, and one of the foremost being entropy, we can safely conclude the universe had a beginning (arguments on critical mass are also very useful here, but let's not waste time there; seeing how it is not the main topic of discussion). There is as of yet, no logical explanation for the creation of matter. Even arguments focussing on the point of 0 net enegery are quite useless, because they still do not offer a valid explanation for the actual creation of matter (also, on many of these points I make towards the beginning you will have to have some knowledge of the subject itself to have any idea what I am referring to).
Big Bang: simplified it pretty much says 'nothing blew up and created everything'. This is the most pathetic hypothesis I've ever seen discussed, and anyone informed on it will tend to agree.
Creation of the solar system (I really don't want to have to spend too much time on anything larger, because that would take a long, long time).
Creation of the solar system (especailly the moon):
Nebular Hypothesis: Hydrogen and other gases swirled around and
condensed into our sun and its planets.
Why it isn't true:
1 - Gas in outer space (as here on earth) expands; it does not contract.
2 - There would be nothing to swirl it around; and, even if it could,
there would be nothing to push gas into suns and rock.
3 - If swirling gas formed itself into separate bodies, why did it not
keep going and push it all into one giant body?
4 - What would have kept the smaller bodies from falling into the
larger one? It is obvious that everything is perfectly balanced.
5 - Interstellar gas is not today condensing. It is always expanding.
6 - Our sun is rotating too slowly for the theory to be true.
Fission Theory (blah blah blah, theory, blah blah blah, nitpicking,
blah blah blah): One day our sun burst open, and planets and moons
shot out at high speeds and went to their respective places, then
stopped, and started orbiting the sun, as the moons began orbiting the
planets. (Charles Darwin's son, *George Darwin, said the moon lifted
out of the Pacific Ocean on a high tide and began orbiting the earth.)
Why it isn't true:
1 - It could not possibly achieve escape velocity, and; if it did,
would have pulverized into fragments.
2 - Moon rocks are somewhat different than rocks on earth. Clementine
Research Project, which was able to analyze rocks beneath the moon's
surface.
3 - If an explosion on earth was powerful enough to hurl material into
outer space, that material would continue moving outward. It would not
stop and then circle the earth.
4 - If thrown off by the earth, the moon would encircle the earth at
the equator, not at a tilt of 18-28 degrees.
Capture Theory: Planets and moons were flying around, and some were
captured by our sun and began circling.
Why it's wrong:
1 - Outer space is too large for nine planets and sixty moons to be
caught by our sun. Millions would have to pass, in order for one to be
caught.
2 - No planets or moons are flying by us today.
3 - They would tend to crash into the sun, not fly by it or begin
encircling it.
4 - Moons would not begin orbiting around planets; they would crash
into the sun or into the planets.
Accretion Theory (woot): A pile of space dust and rock chunks pushed
together into our planet, and another pile pushed itself into our
moon. Then the moon got close enough and began encircling the earth.
Why it is incorrect (variation...)
1 - Where did the space dust and rock come from?
2 - Loose gravel, etc., in outer space would not push itself together;
it would push apart.
3 - The moons and planets would crash together.
Planetary Collision Theory: Our world collided with a small planet,
and the explosion threw off rocks which became the moon, and then it
began orbiting us.
blah blah wrong...
1 - Such an impact would destroy the earth.
2 - Material from the explosion would keep moving outward forever.
3. 3 - Outward moving material would not stop and begin circling.
4 - Such an event would have to happen to all the other planets.
5 - Thousands of near misses would have to occur, for one to crash
together; yet no moons are passing us today.
Stellar Collision Theory: Our planets, moons, and suns spun off from
the collision between stars.
Wrong:
1 - The collision would hurl material outward, and never veer from
that outward course.
1 - The collision would hurl material outward, and never veer from
that outward course.
Gas Cloud Theory: Gas clouds were captured by our sun. But instead of
being drawn into it, they began whirling and pushing themselves into
planets and moons.
1 - Gas does not lump together; it only spreads outward.
2 - If gas could stick together, it would not produce objects which
would encircle the sun nor would smaller bodies encircle them.
Ok, well I think I have covered enough topics to make my point, now let's go onto a little planet called earth.
Due to a lack of time (I do have a life and a girlfriend you know...) I am going to skip even more items, such as geology and the fossil record, the creation of life etc and go straight to the process of evolution.
Starting with a single organism.
This 'organism' would not be the same type of organism seen today. It would be a little strand of RNA that replicated itself, making only other RNA at first, and not proteins that would help in the production of more RNA. Every common structure in cells (ie., cell membrane, DNA etc) would have to have been so beneficial to the propogation of the species that nothing without them survived. This would mean that the original lifeform would have had very little chance of survivng without these important pieces of a cell.
The process of evolution itself in a developed organism.
Now, as most random mutations are harmful to a create, evolution is already improbable. Of course, this is where the argument of Natural Selection is used. The problems here are simple, probability and genetic drift. When you get to the point where it is more than likely that an organism undergoes 2 mutations in a generation evolution will actually work backwards no matter what happened earlier. Assuming a creature has 2 beneficial mutations, what are the chances that it's offspring will, or that it's offspring's offspring will? It is in fact exponential decay at this point. Now let's take into account genetic drift. The odds of a 'superior' create being killed by an unforeseen disaster is the same as any member of its species. For instance, lightning strike, earthquake, volcano, a superior predator catching you unawares (please don't even try wasting my time with attempts at nitpicking). When you really study it you realize that the more complex the being, the more unlikely any evolution is. If anyone needs a deeper explanation on any of these covered topics please send me an e-mail at flatballq@yahoo.com It may take awhile for me to respond, because i rarely use that e-mail, because it gets a lot of spam mail.
PS. The main argument here is relying on the probability of evolution at higher levels of life, because of the odds of a beneficial mutation. I am in fact advocating a kind of 'de-evolution', but I am not denying the existence of speciezation. Although I do believe that a species will lose adaptability after every trial it has faced. And yes, it is currently at the same stage as evolution, no testing. But the logic and math involved is even more plausible and reliable than that used in theoretical physics. But I do however have an experiment planned out and I am seeking funding for it, and have been for a few months now.

that's not what I said. My point was, if your theory doesn't CARE that it starts with a chicken, only that you've ended with a caddy with no regards to that something in there MUST be wrong, then your theory isn't working properly. If you have no care what form life began with, how are you gonna make theories on what it did after that?


*takes a sip of my Dasani*
what the hell, wine? oh well
*disregards that something in there MUST be wrong*

that's not what I said. My point was, if your theory doesn't CARE that it starts with a chicken, only that you've ended with a caddy with no regards to that something in there MUST be wrong, then your theory isn't working properly. If you have no care what form life began with, how are you gonna make theories on what it did after that?
The theory only concerns itself with what is observable: 1) how gradual changes have bigger effects, 2) how a single ancestor (species) can produce multiple different descendents through gradual changes, and 3) what traits distinguish a species from an ancestor species, and how they got these new traits. Evolutionists can speculate on the links in between where no evidence has been found, but until something that fits it is found, that is not declared to be anything but speculation on what goes inbetween.

Evolutionary theory does not concern itself with what the original life-form may have been; any speculation on that is speculation. It may even have been many life-forms in many parts of the world at a similar time in history. That's not evolution, it's speculation. However, if we found one of those original life-forms, or traces of it, and a close neighbour dated a few millennia later, we may attempt to apply evolutionary theory to see if we can determine if the one evolved into the other. That's evolution. It's based on the observable evidence.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented evolution.

Personally, I think it is all much simpler just to go along with Solipsism, which predates Christianity by a good 400-500 years. It all revolves around three principles:

1. Nothing exists
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others

To put this in simpler terms, Reality is all simply a figment of your imagination, either made up in your own mind, or fed to you from an outside source, making your brain believe that you actually sense all of these things happening. To put it even simpler, think "The Matrix". I suppose the only problem with the original source being your own brain is that, in that case, if you thought hard enough about it, your could actually alter the world through sheer brain power.

This man has already said he is not a scientist, so trying to lure him into a debate over an issue in biology that is currently under debate at the highest levels is quite frankly sad, pathetic, and miserable.
Ok, let us look at a supernatural creation of the universe in contrast to a natural creation of the universe, from a Christian perspective.
Supernatural Creation:
[...]
PS. The main argument here is relying on the probability of evolution at higher levels of life, because of the odds of a beneficial mutation. I am in fact advocating a kind of 'de-evolution', but I am not denying the existence of speciezation. Although I do believe that a species will lose adaptability after every trial it has faced. And yes, it is currently at the same stage as evolution, no testing. But the logic and math involved is even more plausible and reliable than that used in theoretical physics. But I do however have an experiment planned out and I am seeking funding for it, and have been for a few months now.

Well put. I'm glad to see there's actually a thinking Christian out there. I'm still an atheist. No matter the perspective, faith has to be involved somwhere. I happen to simply be a man of little faith.
My question is this: there's supposed to be this all-powerful, all-pervasive thing that exists beyond my scope of understanding and perception, and I'm supposed to believe it? At least evolution is logical, what with humans being so genetically similar to chimpanzees and all.

133 pages!! HOLY CHRISTMAS!!!

This can only be a:
- religious thread;
- Iraqi thread;
- gay thread;
- abortion thread;
- and that's all.

133 pages!! HOLY CHRISTMAS!!!

This can only be a:
- religious thread;
- Iraqi thread;
- gay thread;
- abortion thread;
- and that's all.
We have done it with a morality thread
Social threads
as well as a Canada and usa thread as well (more then once)

Immigration thread

OhhhOhhh cant forget the republican vs demacrats threads (of some sort or another ... kerry is a _______ bush is a _______ sort of threads ... that was closer to election though)

that's not what I said. My point was, if your theory doesn't CARE that it starts with a chicken, only that you've ended with a caddy with no regards to that something in there MUST be wrong, then your theory isn't working properly. If you have no care what form life began with, how are you gonna make theories on what it did after that?

Actually, the theory doesn't care about the first OR the last product... all it follows is the progression from state-to-state.

If humans just so happen to be the latest link in a chain that also involved home erectus, homo habilis and ramapithicus... that is unimportant in the scheme of things... all 'evolution' cares about is the mechainsm by which stronger contendors beat weaker ones.

...I really don't want to have to spend too much time on anything larger, because that would take a long, long time...
Fission Theory (blah blah blah, theory, blah blah blah, nitpicking,
blah blah blah)... blah blah wrong... due to a lack of time (I do have a life and a girlfriend you know...) I am going to skip even more items... (please don't even try wasting my time with attempts at nitpicking)...

You spend a whole lot of time talking about how you don't want your content discussed, and how you don't really have time to discuss it all, etc.

I think you are missing the real point, which is that: almost every single thing you typed was sub-grade-school misinformation...

Where did you get all these crazy ideas? I would love to see what sources prompted you to make such a path of ridiculous assertions.

Obviously, I'd take them apart individually, but you begged us not to. (It's not hard to see why).

Personally, I think it is all much simpler just to go along with Solipsism, which predates Christianity by a good 400-500 years. It all revolves around three principles:

1. Nothing exists
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others
Solipsism seems to me like insanity, but I suppose I should read about it, as the reasoning behind these statements may explain why they are considered to be valid.