NationStates Jolt Archive

You have yet to show how reality disproves God. And dont go on with your "burden of proof" idea, because in this case, you have said that to know God you must refuse to accept reality, thus making the assertation that reality somehow disproves God. So how does it do that?

God has no place in reality as there is no evidence for his existence, or evidence for the need for his existance.

Have you finally got that? No evidence, zero, zilch, nada, sweet FA, none, diddly-squat.

You yourself, when asked what evidence you rely on to prove the existance of a god just refer to "the gospel" in an airy-fairy way. Ignoring as you do their lack of credibility as historic documents, their inconsistencies and contradictions.

When asked to refer to a passage you would claim offers evidence for a god you just drop the thread for a couple of days and ignore it.

Your credibility, like that of the bible itself, rests on the evidence - or in this case the lack of it.

It's not that reality disproves God. It's that the majority of religious persons show an inability to accept certain realities facing all humans. The big one is death (Christianity is founded on denial of death, for instance), but there are plenty more. Whether or not there really is some God or Force or whatever, the choice to believe in some random, anthropomorphized, loving Sky Fairy is in no way an attempt to understand and embrace the world we live in. Religious people are no closer to anything than secular people are, and arguably the religious are even further from the "real God" that might exist, because the religious people have simply decided to create a God in their own image to validate the opinions they already decided to hold. It's not about denying "God," it's about using God as a means to deny anything you like.

Very well put.

No, to know god it takes a belief in fairy stories and an inability to accept reality.
No, that's what it takes to mistake the image of god for god.

God has no place in reality as there is no evidence for his existence, or evidence for the need for his existance.
What sort of evidence for a need? How do you even begin to look for that? I would say, rather, that the plentitude of people who want to believe god is a real physical thing is evidence of a need.

It's not that reality disproves God. It's that the majority of religious persons show an inability to accept certain realities facing all humans. The big one is death (Christianity is founded on denial of death, for instance), but there are plenty more. Whether or not there really is some God or Force or whatever, the choice to believe in a random, anthropomorphized, loving Sky Fairy is in no way an attempt to understand and embrace the world we live in or the "God" that may or may not really exist. Religious people are no closer to anything than secular people are, and arguably the religious are even further from the "real God" that might exist, because the religious people have simply decided to create a God in their own image to validate the opinions they already decided to hold. It's not about denying "God," it's about using God as a means to deny anything you like.
Well said, indeed.

No, that's what it takes to mistake the image of god for god.

Pardon?

What sort of evidence for a need? How do you even begin to look for that? I would say, rather, that the plentitude of people who want to believe god is a real physical thing is evidence of a need.

Wrong kind of 'need.' If I'm reading right Brenchley is talking about a need as in 'a requirement to explain a phenomenon,' not a need as in a longing or desire for something to be true.

What sort of evidence for a need? How do you even begin to look for that? I would say, rather, that the plentitude of people who want to believe god is a real physical thing is evidence of a need.

If, in science, there were big holes where science feared to tread, that could be taken as leaving room for the need for a god.

Having a "need for a god" is having something that requires the supernatural to explain.

While we don't know everything, while there are still many secrets of the universe to be found, what is clear is that science already has the foundations from which the answers will be found.

Pardon?
What Bottle said. "Whether or not there really is some God or Force or whatever, the choice to believe in a random, anthropomorphized, loving Sky Fairy is in no way an attempt to understand and embrace the world we live in or the "God" that may or may not really exist."

If, in science, there were big holes where science feared to tread, that could be taken as leaving room for the need for a god.

Having a "need for a god" is having something that requires the supernatural to explain.

While we don't know everything, while there are still many secrets of the universe to be found, what is clear is that science already has the foundations from which the answers will be found.
Yes, that's it. And if what is being explained is limited to inner things --spirit, soul, heart, these sort of concepts, all good subjective things --then the supernatural is adequate for it. Using the immaterial to explain the immaterial. There is still a very real need for an explanation of these things, and the supernatural suffices. It's only when it is used to explain physical phenomenon that it becomes absurd.

Science is used to uncover things of the physical and material worlds, not the inner world of the spiritual.

Yes, that's it. And if what is being explained is limited to inner things --spirit, soul, heart, these sort of concepts, all good subjective things --then the supernatural is adequate for it. Using the immaterial to explain the immaterial. There is still a very real need for an explanation of these things, and the supernatural suffices. It's only when it is used to explain physical phenomenon that it becomes absurd.

Science is used to uncover things of the physical and material worlds, not the inner world of the spiritual.

The supernatural has a place in the fairy stories of our childhood. It should have no place in the real world of adults.

The supernatural has a place in the fairy stories of our childhood. It should have no place in the real world of adults.
*shrug* The tales of the supernatural (fairy stories) must be distinguished from the supernatural every bit as much as the image of god (portrayed in mythology) must be distinguished from god.

*shrug* The tales of the supernatural (fairy stories) must be distinguished from the supernatural every bit as much as the image of god (portrayed in mythology) must be distinguished from god.

But that is what religion is, tales of the supernatural.

It's not that reality disproves God. It's that the majority of religious persons show an inability to accept certain realities facing all humans. The big one is death (Christianity is founded on denial of death, for instance), but there are plenty more. Whether or not there really is some God or Force or whatever, the choice to believe in a random, anthropomorphized, loving Sky Fairy is in no way an attempt to understand and embrace the world we live in or the "God" that may or may not really exist. Religious people are no closer to anything than secular people are, and arguably the religious are even further from the "real God" that might exist, because the religious people have simply decided to create a God in their own image to validate the opinions they already decided to hold. It's not about denying "God," it's about using God as a means to deny anything you like.

In order to prove what you have claimed, religions would have to come out of an inate feeling in all humans, and that is not the case. Christianity did not arise from "feelings" and "fears" but from the actions of Christ.

The supernatural has a place in the fairy stories of our childhood. It should have no place in the real world of adults.

You have no grounds for that belief so stop acting like you do

In order to prove what you have claimed, religions would have to come out of an inate feeling in all humans, and that is not the case. Christianity did not arise from "feelings" and "fears" but from the actions of Christ.
Considering that it's unlikely Christ ever existed...

Christianity likely arose from local myths and legends combined with an influx of roman cults.

You have no grounds for that belief so stop acting like you do
Either way, the supernatural has no place in science. That is the topic of discussion here, isn't it?

Considering that it's unlikely Christ ever existed...

Christianity likely arose from local myths and legends combined with an influx of roman cults.

You are joking.

There is more documental evidence that Christ existed than there is that Alexander the great existed. So please dont try that one

Either way, the supernatural has no place in science. That is the topic of discussion here, isn't it?

To an extent I agree, but the post I was responding to said religion had no place in adulthood period. Which is wrong

You are joking.

There is more documental evidence that Christ existed than there is that Alexander the great existed. So please dont try that one
No there isn't. The only "documental evidence" that christ existed is in the Bible.

In order to prove what you have claimed, religions would have to come out of an inate feeling in all humans, and that is not the case.

Wrong - again! This is becoming a habit, and a very bad one at that.

It is known that the human brain has a "predisposition" to religion, it is a side effect of one aspect of the wiring of the brian which does have benefit.

Christianity did not arise from "feelings" and "fears" but from the actions of Christ.

Total and utter rubbish. Christianity arose from the needs of a small group of people who wanted to set up their own religion so they could reap the benefits rather than the leaders of the old religion. Pure greed - nothing more.

It was then hi-jacked by regional power blocks and used as a way to control the population to the benefit of those in control. Again, pure greed.

You are joking.

There is more documental evidence that Christ existed than there is that Alexander the great existed. So please dont try that one

Again a claim you cannot justify. The life and times of Alexander the Great are very well documented.

No there isn't. The only "documental evidence" that christ existed is in the Bible.

Precisiely. But guess what? There isnt just one copy of each gospel. There are over 5000 contempary manuscripts of the gospels. Thats the most of any historical document ever.

Again a claim you cannot justify. The life and times of Alexander the Great are very well documented.

But not as well as Jesus. The gospels have more than 5000 contempary manuscripts that we have discovered. Only one or two for the doucmentation of alexander the greats life, and thats far less contempary than the Gospels as well

Wrong - again! This is becoming a habit, and a very bad one at that.

It is known that the human brain has a "predisposition" to religion, it is a side effect of one aspect of the wiring of the brian which does have benefit.

Um, you're going to have to back that up, son. I'm not familiar with any credible research supporting your claim.

In order to prove what you have claimed, religions would have to come out of an inate feeling in all humans, and that is not the case.
How do you figure that? In order to "prove" what I was saying, all that is required is that humans have some drive to create/pursue the supernatural. Whether or not that drive is innate is irrelevant. Indeed, many modern theories center around the idea that religiosity derives from unsatisfied needs; if a person's psychological, physical, or social needs are not met by the conditions naturally occuring in their environment, they will (naturally) pursue some means of satisfying those drives.


Christianity did not arise from "feelings" and "fears" but from the actions of Christ.
Actually, Christianity arose from a secular political leader's decision to use a superstitious cult as a tight base for consolidating his power.

There is more evidence for the existence of Buddha, Zeus, and Jupiter than there is for the literal existence of Jesus Christ. I realize that you choose to believe Jesus was a literal historical figure, but that really isn't relavent to this discussion.

Precisiely. But guess what? There isnt just one copy of each gospel. There are over 5000 contempary manuscripts of the gospels. Thats the most of any historical document ever.

Problem is that all but a timy handful were written by people who were not even born when christ was supposed to have lived.

The number of true, contemporaneous documents is very small - especially given the fact that JC was supposed to have been such a troublemaker.

Um, you're going to have to back that up, son. I'm not familiar with any credible research supporting your claim.

Took a little bit of tracking down but I found an article that refers to the research:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1423450,00.html?gusrc=rss

But not as well as Jesus. The gospels have more than 5000 contempary manuscripts that we have discovered.

So? Do you have any idea how many contemporary manuscripts there are documenting the existence of Superman or The Incredible Hulk? Does this mean they're real, too?

So? Do you have any idea how many contemporary manuscripts there are documenting the existence of Superman or The Incredible Hulk? Does this mean they're real, too?

LMAO.

Yes, you know I believe the same thing. It's funny how Paulians claim that following only Christ is non-Christian.
Ah... there are always people, in EVERY religion, that claim that anyone who doesn't follow religion EXACTLY the way they do, is somehow heretical...

If, in science, there were big holes where science feared to tread, that could be taken as leaving room for the need for a god.

Having a "need for a god" is having something that requires the supernatural to explain.

While we don't know everything, while there are still many secrets of the universe to be found, what is clear is that science already has the foundations from which the answers will be found.

Sorry, my friend... but even the scientist Atheist has to point out that this is a fairy story....

If there is one thing we CAN know for sure, through what we know of science thus far, it is that we can NEVER know EVERYTHING, for sure.

Not only because, the universe is infinitely more complex than we could ever map... not only because the universe is altered in some degree by the simple fact that we TRY to map it... not only because there will always things we can only ascertain SOME properties for...

But, also - because there are always going to be SOME questions that science cannot even (honestly) ask - let alone answer.

The 'existence' of 'god'... is one of those questions.

The supernatural has a place in the fairy stories of our childhood. It should have no place in the real world of adults.

If you think 'fairy stories' are a childhood thing, you have missed half the point of the texts, my friend.

But, also - because there are always going to be SOME questions that science cannot even (honestly) ask - let alone answer.

The 'existence' of 'god'... is one of those questions.

One can, however, honestly say that we have yet to find anything that requires the existence of God to explain. I think that's what Brenchley was referring to.

Sorry, my friend... but even the scientist Atheist has to point out that this is a fairy story....

If there is one thing we CAN know for sure, through what we know of science thus far, it is that we can NEVER know EVERYTHING, for sure.

I disagree, and I know a lot of scientists who would disagree as well.

Not only because, the universe is infinitely more complex than we could ever map... not only because the universe is altered in some degree by the simple fact that we TRY to map it... not only because there will always things we can only ascertain SOME properties for...

But, also - because there are always going to be SOME questions that science cannot even (honestly) ask - let alone answer.

If you think big enough then even your failure is a success by other people's standards.

A unified theory may be just around the corner, in fact it may already be rushing to print. On the other hand it could be several lifetimes away. At this point we have know way of knowing, but what we can feel very confident about is that it will come.

The 'existence' of 'god'... is one of those questions.

Is it? I think science has already excluded a god from anything post Big Bang. If you keep stripping away the need for the involvement of a god you soon have to accept that the god idea is defunct.

If you think 'fairy stories' are a childhood thing, you have missed half the point of the texts, my friend.

I think that fairy Stories SHOULD be a thing of childhood, something we leave behind as we grow up.

You are joking.

There is more documental evidence that Christ existed than there is that Alexander the great existed. So please dont try that one

Actually, my friend, you are so wrong it is scary.

There is almost NO evidence for the actual existence of the man we call 'Jesus'... and what there IS, is entirely non-independent, and certainly not contemporary.

The earliest texts occur a fair while AFTER the alleged crucifixion, and are written by followers of the religion, or by followers of followers.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are not even primary sources, they seem to be based on a (as yet undiscovered) account - which is usually referred to as the 'Q' text.

The earliest 'independent' text, is that of Josephus... which fails to present ANY evidence for Jesus as messiah, or support any of his alleged miracles.

In fact, what Josephus DOES (as does Tacitus, later) is largely describe the fact that there was a MOVEMENT that FOLLOWED the 'christ' figure... making NO account for the validity of that belief, or whether this 'christ' was the fulfillment of older prophecy.

Further - although Josephus HAD been to the area described in the Bible... it was almost a century after the alleged crucifixion. So - ANY information Josephus proposes, must be from hearsay.


The challenge, my friend: Show INDEPENDENT, CONTEMPORARY evidence for Jesus as Messiah... or even for his existence, at all.

I think that fairy Stories SHOULD be a thing of childhood, something we leave behind as we grow up.
As I said, my friend... you are misunderstanding the texts.

Perhaps you confuse 'fairy stories' with the homogenised Disney product?

A little research is your friend, my friend.

Have you ever really looked into our modern fairy tales, and where they came from, and what they mean? It seems you have not... or you would not make the mistake of assuming that fairy stories had EVER been for 'children'.

Took a little bit of tracking down but I found an article that refers to the research:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1423450,00.html?gusrc=rss
Hmm, I dunno. I'm trying to get a hold of the primary sources, but I've got to say that I'm honestly not impressed with those references. I'll see if I can drum up something on my own, too.

Precisiely. But guess what? There isnt just one copy of each gospel. There are over 5000 contempary manuscripts of the gospels. Thats the most of any historical document ever.

I call 'bullshit'.

Sorry, my friend... but you are failing to make sense.

Are you claiming there were 5000 INDEPENDENT 'Gospel of Matthew' texts, for example? Each written independently of ALL the others, and each different from their peers?

Or... are you just saying we have FOUND 5000 'copies'? In which case, you MUST be aware, simply reproducing a text does not add any extra 'weight' to it as evidence...

One can, however, honestly say that we have yet to find anything that requires the existence of God to explain. I think that's what Brenchley was referring to.

No, actually, Brenchley has said in many threads that science will eventually know everything about reality and that we are close enough to that to know that God cannot exist.

The idea is patently false. Science doesn't reveal a need for God or address God in any way. Anyone who claims that science is based on an absolute reality rather than only that evidence that is available to us regarding that reality doesn't understand science or reality.

One can, however, honestly say that we have yet to find anything that requires the existence of God to explain. I think that's what Brenchley was referring to.
And I agree... but to assert that science can EVER know EVERYTHING... is logically flawed, and totally unscientific.

Science doesn't reveal a need for God or address God in any way

Well, science does explicitly reject the idea of a God or other supernatural being which actively interferes with the real world in an unpredictable, undetectable manner as an explanation for any physical event. That's why a lot of fundamentalists dislike it.

I disagree, and I know a lot of scientists who would disagree as well.


No... you really don't.

You may know people that CALL themselves scientists, but what you suggest they 'believe', makes them less that TRULY scientific.


If you think big enough then even your failure is a success by other people's standards.


Ah... meaningless platitudes, the true heart of debate...


A unified theory may be just around the corner, in fact it may already be rushing to print. On the other hand it could be several lifetimes away. At this point we have know way of knowing, but what we can feel very confident about is that it will come.


I think you are labouring under a misapprehension, if you think a 'unified theory' is, in ANY way akin, to knowing everything.



Is it? I think science has already excluded a god from anything post Big Bang. If you keep stripping away the need for the involvement of a god you soon have to accept that the god idea is defunct.

There is a difference between 'denying' god... and 'disproving' god.

Science denies god, by virtue of the lack of empirical evidence.

Science can never 'disprove' god.

One can, however, honestly say that we have yet to find anything that requires the existence of God to explain. I think that's what Brenchley was referring to.

It is.

I think that fairy Stories SHOULD be a thing of childhood, something we leave behind as we grow up.
Again - you are lecturing from a platform of ignorance.

Explain to me WHY you believe we should ignore the lessons to be learned from Badab, Morrigan, and Macha? Why we should ignore the histories of the Sidhe, Tuatha, Fir Bolg or the Ellyllon?

Explain to me WHY the Sluagh are irrelevent to our modern day 'mythologies'?

Or - to cast a more recent gaze... we could discuss the onset of menstruation, and how it relates to sexuality in the pubescent female, could we not?

Hmm, I dunno. I'm trying to get a hold of the primary sources, but I've got to say that I'm honestly not impressed with those references. I'll see if I can drum up something on my own, too.

I have to say that I'm not 100% convinced. But having read a longer article sometime last year I do think there is a germ of something in the idea.

Well, science does explicitly reject the idea of a God or other supernatural being which actively interferes with the real world in an unpredictable, undetectable manner as an explanation for any physical event. That's why a lot of fundamentalists dislike it.

However, as I have already pointed out... science 'denying' god, is in no way akin to science DISPROVING god.

Science can... even SHOULD, 'deny' god.

Science can never 'disprove' god.

Well, science does explicitly reject the idea of a God or other supernatural being which actively interferes with the real world in an unpredictable, undetectable manner as an explanation for any physical event. That's why a lot of fundamentalists dislike it.

No, it doesn't. It simply has no evidence to suggest it should accept that possibility. Science only draws conclusions from evidence. All available evidence suggests that the nature of our reality is not thus, so it ignores that possibility. It doesn't preclude the possibility of any type of supernatural act.

It is.

Not according to the post you made directly after....

No, it doesn't. It simply has no evidence to suggest it should accept that possibility.

No, the scientific method discounts appeals to the divine using Occam's Razor because they cannot add predictive power to a theory. Changing that would require an observable divine being which could be measured and tested.

No, the scientific method discounts appeals to the divine using Occam's Razor because they cannot add predictive power to a theory. Changing that would require an observable divine being which could be measured and tested.

Changing that would require evidence for such an event. Exactly as I said. Science makes NO CONCLUSIONS on God or gods other than the conclusion that God or gods is untestable and even this conclusion is based on available evidence. If the evidence changes so does the conclusion.

No... you really don't.

You may know people that CALL themselves scientists, but what you suggest they 'believe', makes them less that TRULY scientific.

You would actually laugh if you really knew the level of scientists I've talked to over the years.

Ah... meaningless platitudes, the true heart of debate...

Far from meaningless.

I think you are labouring under a misapprehension, if you think a 'unified theory' is, in ANY way akin, to knowing everything.

It is knowing the structure of the universe and how all the forces that constrain our universe relate to each other.

There is a difference between 'denying' god... and 'disproving' god.

Science denies god, by virtue of the lack of empirical evidence.

Science can never 'disprove' god.

It can exclude god, and does. If science explains how X works, using rules that apply to everything, then there is no room for a god in X. Science has explained so many Xs that there are now few places left for a god to hide. Science doesn't deny god, it denies him a hiding place in our universe.

As I said, my friend... you are misunderstanding the texts.

Perhaps you confuse 'fairy stories' with the homogenised Disney product?

A little research is your friend, my friend.

Have you ever really looked into our modern fairy tales, and where they came from, and what they mean? It seems you have not... or you would not make the mistake of assuming that fairy stories had EVER been for 'children'.

I'll work with the COED definition which I've posted before:-

fairy story
n noun a children's tale about magical and imaginary beings and lands. Øan untrue account.

You would actually laugh if you really knew the level of scientists I've talked to over the years.


Why?

And, what do you mean, level'?

Surely, you must realise 'Behe' is a high-'level' proponent... but, I would not say he is very scientific.


Far from meaningless.


Hollow rhetoric. Explain how it was relevent or meaningful to the debate?


It is knowing the structure of the universe and how all the forces that constrain our universe relate to each other.


Which is STILL not the same as knowing everything.

To even assume one COULD know everything is folly... not to mention illogical.


It can exclude god, and does. If science explains how X works, using rules that apply to everything, then there is no room for a god in X. Science has explained so many Xs that there are now few places left for a god to hide. Science doesn't deny god, it denies him a hiding place in our universe.

Again... you argue from a platform of ignorance. If you believe that 'god' could be disproved... even by mapping EVERY molecule of real space... then you do not understand the concept of 'god'.

Finding no empirical evidence for 'god' is NOT the same as finding empirical evidence there is NO 'god'.

You fail to understand science if you think it is.

Again - you are lecturing from a platform of ignorance.

Explain to me WHY you believe we should ignore the lessons to be learned from Badab, Morrigan, and Macha? Why we should ignore the histories of the Sidhe, Tuatha, Fir Bolg or the Ellyllon?

Explain to me WHY the Sluagh are irrelevent to our modern day 'mythologies'?

They are fairy stories - what more is there to say?

Or - to cast a more recent gaze... we could discuss the onset of menstruation, and how it relates to sexuality in the pubescent female, could we not?

I'm sure you are trying to make a point, but it would be easier if you just made it.

You would actually laugh if you really knew the level of scientists I've talked to over the years.



Far from meaningless.



It is knowing the structure of the universe and how all the forces that constrain our universe relate to each other.



It can exclude god, and does. If science explains how X works, using rules that apply to everything, then there is no room for a god in X. Science has explained so many Xs that there are now few places left for a god to hide. Science doesn't deny god, it denies him a hiding place in our universe.

I claim that God is a virtual reality machine that we are all hooked to. We enter the machine and interact and view what we perceive as reality. We are only allowed to perceive the machine as reality and we are given no evidence or indication that objectively makes us aware of the machine. In this scenario God is everywhere and is everything. How has anything science has ever done or will ever do discounted this explanation of reality? Science hasn't. Science can't. EVER. It is unfalsifiable.

Your point is ridiculous on its very face. In that scenario God is everywhere and everything and science can't take even one step to prevent God a place to hide. To suggest otherwise requires one to have NO knowledge of the limitations of science.

I'll work with the COED definition which I've posted before:-

fairy story
n noun a children's tale about magical and imaginary beings and lands. Øan untrue account.

And yet, this definition ignores the fact that fairy-stories may ALSO be true... does it not?

Not that one must necessarily believe in our modern images of fairies... but, for example, the history of the fairy folk in Ireland, actually corresponds very strongly to REAL immigrations of settlers, and the conflicts that followed.

What you are presenting is a 'trivial' definition... a definition of what the CONTEMPORARY interpretation of the colloquial phrase 'fairy story' means.

At it's heart, the phrase 'fairy story' is a story about 'fairies'... and a little research will clearly show that THAT does not equate to a children's story at all.

They are fairy stories - what more is there to say?


Nothing. For you. Because you know nothing about the subject.

If you lack the information to see how our modern cinema shows 'Sluagh' fairytales on a pretty regular basis, or you fail to see the significance of Badab, Morrigan and Macha in gender icons, or the continuation of 'Morrigan' through 2000 years of literature (including ONE story often retold... in fact, remade as a major cinematic blockbuster within the last year or so)... if you fail to see how the three invasions of Fir Bolg peoples into the lands of the Tuatha de Danaan bears any historical relevence.... then you do not UNDERSTAND fairy stories at all.


I'm sure you are trying to make a point, but it would be easier if you just made it.

Well, which modern 'fairy tale' am I talking about?

Why?

And, what do you mean, level'?

level
n noun
3 a position or stage on a scale of quantity, extent, rank, or quality.

Surely, you must realise 'Behe' is a high-'level' proponent... but, I would not say he is very scientific.

I wouldn't even say he was high level in any way.

Hollow rhetoric. Explain how it was relevent or meaningful to the debate?

Most scientist I know like to think big, to push the limits if you like. After all, if scientist didn't there would be little progress.

Which is STILL not the same as knowing everything.

It is. If you know the rules by which the universe functions, if you understand the forces and how they relate, then everything is knowable.

To even assume one COULD know everything is folly... not to mention illogical.

If you know the rules then nothing is unknowable.

Again... you argue from a platform of ignorance. If you believe that 'god' could be disproved... even by mapping EVERY molecule of real space... then you do not understand the concept of 'god'.

You see, this is where you go wrong. We are talking about the creationist's god (see the title of the thread) and he is clearly defind as the god of genesis, the mythical creator of heaven and earth, of the universe, of all life and of man.

Now as each of the claims for that god have evaporated under scientific investigation some people have tried to invent gods that are not omnipotant, omnipresent or interfering. Tried to find new places for this mythical being to hide from science. Well, sorry, but its not on.

Finding no empirical evidence for 'god' is NOT the same as finding empirical evidence there is NO 'god'.

You fail to understand science if you think it is.

Religion used god to explain the universe to the simpler people of the past.

Science uses facts to explain the universe to us today.

Science finds no evidence for god. Science also finds nothing that needs the existance of god to explain it. Without evidence god is just a myth.

Science doesn't exclude the supernatural from its thoughts, science has explained so much of the supernatural over the years - but then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural.

A scientist will always ask of religion "where is the evidence?" Religion always fails to come up with any.

Nothing. For you. Because you know nothing about the subject.

If you lack the information to see how our modern cinema shows 'Sluagh' fairytales on a pretty regular basis, or you fail to see the significance of Badab, Morrigan and Macha in gender icons, or the continuation of 'Morrigan' through 2000 years of literature (including ONE story often retold... in fact, remade as a major cinematic blockbuster within the last year or so)... if you fail to see how the three invasions of Fir Bolg peoples into the lands of the Tuatha de Danaan bears any historical relevence.... then you do not UNDERSTAND fairy stories at all.

Fairy stories and legends have always been used by film makes, look at how many biblical epics have been made.

Doesn't mean anything other than the stories are good stories.

Well, which modern 'fairy tale' am I talking about?

How the hell should I know? I don't tend to read modern fairy tales.

level
n noun
3 a position or stage on a scale of quantity, extent, rank, or quality.


Don't even attempt to be condescending.

You said "You would actually laugh if you really knew the level of scientists I've talked to over the years"... and yet you have failed to explain what you MEAN by 'level', or why I "would actually laugh".

Again with the hollow rhetoric.



I wouldn't even say he was high level in any way.


He lectures at college/university 'level', does he not?

He is a leading 'expert' on Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, is he not?

By some definitions, he is 'high level'. He even might be termed a 'high level scientist' by SOME.


Most scientist I know like to think big, to push the limits if you like. After all, if scientist didn't there would be little progress.


Pretty, but irrelevent.


It is. If you know the rules by which the universe functions, if you understand the forces and how they relate, then everything is knowable.


Absolute rubbish. You fail to understand even the most basic premises of science if you believe this.


If you know the rules then nothing is unknowable.


Again... you obviously have no science background.


You see, this is where you go wrong. We are talking about the creationist's god (see the title of the thread) and he is clearly defind as the god of genesis, the mythical creator of heaven and earth, of the universe, of all life and of man.

Now as each of the claims for that god have evaporated under scientific investigation some people have tried to invent gods that are not omnipotant, omnipresent or interfering. Tried to find new places for this mythical being to hide from science. Well, sorry, but its not on.


We can NEVER disprove the 'god of genesis'. Every time a scientist introduces a mechanism that can explain one of the actions required to form the universe, it can be taken as merely being the 'tool' of the Creator.

Genesis doesn't say that 'god' made the world by hand. ALL science as we know it, COULD be a tool of a creator.


Religion used god to explain the universe to the simpler people of the past.

Science uses facts to explain the universe to us today.

Science finds no evidence for god. Science also finds nothing that needs the existance of god to explain it. Without evidence god is just a myth.

Science doesn't exclude the supernatural from its thoughts, science has explained so much of the supernatural over the years - but then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural.

A scientist will always ask of religion "where is the evidence?" Religion always fails to come up with any.

Finding no evidence, is still not the same as finding evidence of NO god.

Also - without evidence the STORY of 'god' may be myth... but that doesn't affect the validity of 'god', as an entity.

Fairy stories and legends have always been used by film makes, look at how many biblical epics have been made.

Doesn't mean anything other than the stories are good stories.


Again - I point out that you argue from ignorance.

Have you seen the movie "King Arthur"? Did you see the elegant remake of "Dracula"?

Do you know anything about the migrations of the Celtic peoples?


How the hell should I know? I don't tend to read modern fairy tales.

I wonder, perhaps, if you have read, or seen, any "Batman" media...

The fairy tale I refer to, however, is a little less 'recent'... I refer to "Red Riding Hood"... I'm sure you MUST have, at least, heard OF that story, no?

Religion used god to explain the universe to the simpler people of the past.

Science uses facts to explain the universe to us today.

Science finds no evidence for god. Science also finds nothing that needs the existance of god to explain it. Without evidence god is just a myth.

Science doesn't exclude the supernatural from its thoughts, science has explained so much of the supernatural over the years - but then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural.

A scientist will always ask of religion "where is the evidence?" Religion always fails to come up with any.
Religion is in no way about explaining the physical universe; it is about spiritual concepts (heart, mind, soul, afterlife, etc). Science has not replaced the function of religion.

Science has found no physical evidence because god is immaterial. Science cannot and will not address the immaterial.

Science has explained nothing of the supernatural. If it "becomes natural" then science is only explaining the natural, not the supernatural. It was natural all along.

But, also - because there are always going to be SOME questions that science cannot even (honestly) ask - let alone answer.

The 'existence' of 'god'... is one of those questions.
Uh...

No, the existence of god is not a question for science. It is a question for philosophy and religion. Science doesn't give a shit about god. God is not necessary for science, doesn't contradict it either. Science is indifferent.

The earliest 'independent' text, is that of Josephus... which fails to present ANY evidence for Jesus as messiah, or support any of his alleged miracles.
Actually the passage commonly referred to written by Josephus about Jesus does claim he was the messiah... however, it was a forgery from the 4th century, not in the original manuscript.

Uh...

No, the existence of god is not a question for science. It is a question for philosophy and religion. Science doesn't give a shit about god. God is not necessary for science, doesn't contradict it either. Science is indifferent.

Isn't that what I said?

I assume, therefore, that you are agreeing, no?

Science cannot honestly even ASK about 'god'... much less answer that question.

And THAT is why science can never answer EVERY question... because some questions just cannot be legitimately asked, in the realm of science.

Isn't that what I said?

I assume, therefore, that you are agreeing, no?

Science cannot honestly even ASK about 'god'... much less answer that question.

And THAT is why science can never answer EVERY question... because some questions just cannot be legitimately asked, in the realm of science.
Ok good. :)

I was slightly confused there.

Actually the passage commonly referred to written by Josephus about Jesus does claim he was the messiah... however, it was a forgery from the 4th century, not in the original manuscript.

Actually - the Josephus text ONLY referred to 'Christ'... it never made any claims about 'messiah'.

Actually - the Josephus text ONLY referred to 'Christ'... it never made any claims about 'messiah'.
Everything I've read says there was a bit about the messiah, which was added in much later. And that there was nothing else even remotely related to christianity or christ in there.

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, we should teach intelligent design! And, since we're all so damn tolerant, why not accept the teachings of Pastafarians? The Noodly Flying Monster worshippers, I mean. The NFM makes to me at least as much sense as a great vast f*cking God who pulls the Universe out of nothing. Or how about Humma Kavula's religion from the H2G2 movie? The one which features Arkleseisure, the god, who sneezed the Universe out of his nostril. We should teach that theory of creation too!

Or how about the Norse creation myth, where the universe is created by a giant cow licking a sweaty frost giant, producing gods who kill the giant and then create the universe out of his body parts? That needs to be taught too, if we are to become truely tolerant!

Don't even attempt to be condescending.

You said "You would actually laugh if you really knew the level of scientists I've talked to over the years"... and yet you have failed to explain what you MEAN by 'level', or why I "would actually laugh".

If you knew the leval of scientists I talk to you would realize how stupid your comments were - you would have to laugh at yourself.

Again with the hollow rhetoric.

Again a stupid comment.

He lectures at college/university 'level', does he not?

He is a leading 'expert' on Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, is he not?

By some definitions, he is 'high level'. He even might be termed a 'high level scientist' by SOME.

He would not get a job in a European collage. You cannot have an expert in a discipline that has no respect. And the only "high level" tag he has earbed for himself is that of high level idiot.

Pretty, but irrelevent.

Far from it, it is highly relivent to science.

Absolute rubbish. You fail to understand even the most basic premises of science if you believe this.

Grannies and egg sucking spring to mind. If you cannot even understand the concept of thing being knowable then you have no business talking about science.

Again... you obviously have no science background.

40 years in science, technical editor/proof reader on dozens of science books, lecturing, advising - and always learning.

We can NEVER disprove the 'god of genesis'. Every time a scientist introduces a mechanism that can explain one of the actions required to form the universe, it can be taken as merely being the 'tool' of the Creator.

Don't be so damd stupid. The god of genisis had been beaten to a pulp by science.

Genesis doesn't say that 'god' made the world by hand. ALL science as we know it, COULD be a tool of a creator.

Only an ID moron would really beleive that.

Finding no evidence, is still not the same as finding evidence of NO god.

Also - without evidence the STORY of 'god' may be myth... but that doesn't affect the validity of 'god', as an entity.

If after 15,000,000,000 years god(s) have left not a single trace of evidence then it is very safe to say they don't exist.

Religion is in no way about explaining the physical universe; it is about spiritual concepts (heart, mind, soul, afterlife, etc). Science has not replaced the function of religion.

It has replace religion in explaining the universe to people.

Science has found no physical evidence because god is immaterial. Science cannot and will not address the immaterial.

Science addresses the immaterial every day, it even looks at the supernatural in an attept to make it just natural. What science has not done is to find a single scrap of evidence for the biblical god 9or any other gods for that matter).

Science has explained nothing of the supernatural. If it "becomes natural" then science is only explaining the natural, not the supernatural. It was natural all along.

At one time everything needed the supernatural to explain it. Science converted all that to natural explinations. In fact it has done such a good job that what is left in the realm of the supernatural is now really the stuff of fairy tales.

Again - I point out that you argue from ignorance.

Have you seen the movie "King Arthur"? Did you see the elegant remake of "Dracula"?

No to both.

Do you know anything about the migrations of the Celtic peoples?

Not much, mainly because most of it is tied up in myth and magic.

I wonder, perhaps, if you have read, or seen, any "Batman" media...

Not since I was about 12, prefered Superman anyway.

The fairy tale I refer to, however, is a little less 'recent'... I refer to "Red Riding Hood"... I'm sure you MUST have, at least, heard OF that story, no?

Yes.

Yeah, we should teach intelligent design! And, since we're all so damn tolerant, why not accept the teachings of Pastafarians? The Noodly Flying Monster worshippers, I mean. The NFM makes to me at least as much sense as a great vast f*cking God who pulls the Universe out of nothing. Or how about Humma Kavula's religion from the H2G2 movie? The one which features Arkleseisure, the god, who sneezed the Universe out of his nostril. We should teach that theory of creation too!

Or how about the Norse creation myth, where the universe is created by a giant cow licking a sweaty frost giant, producing gods who kill the giant and then create the universe out of his body parts? That needs to be taught too, if we are to become truely tolerant!

how about we tech ones that at least a few people believe, which are also rational? In fact, I can't think of one religion (including evolution/darwinism/whatever) that is perfectly completely rational...

how about we tech ones that at least a few people believe, which are also rational? In fact, I can't think of one religion (including evolution/darwinism/whatever) that is perfectly completely rational...

Evolution is not a religion, it is a science. As such it get taught in science classes.

Evolution is not a religion, it is a science. As such it get taught in science classes.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science. Thats philosophy, and as such is not viable to be taught in a science class. Thus if people wish to teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning then it should be in a philosophy class.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science. Thats philosophy, and as such is not viable to be taught in a science class. Thus if people wish to teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning then it should be in a philosophy class.
In my school they'd have to do it in two steps. Teach pure Darwinism in biology class, then teach materialism/nihilism/whatever you meant in philosophy or religion class.

In my school they'd have to do it in two steps. Teach pure Darwinism in biology class, then teach materialism/nihilism/whatever you meant in philosophy or religion class.

Exactly. What teaching evolution should not do is teach the idea that it proves religion wrong, because it doesnt.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science.

No, it's just a totally random leap in logic. Even if the universe was created entirely by natural mechanisms, it does not follow that life has no meaning.

Exactly. What teaching evolution should not do is teach the idea that it proves religion wrong, because it doesnt.

So, you still believe that, in accordance with the scripture, the Earth is flat? After all, it's only scientific evidence that proves the Earth is not flat.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science. Thats philosophy, and as such is not viable to be taught in a science class. Thus if people wish to teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning then it should be in a philosophy class.

Science can explain everything. It may not do as yet, but you cannot claim it will not do in time.

Evolution is taught in science class because it is a science.

Exactly. What teaching evolution should not do is teach the idea that it proves religion wrong, because it doesnt.

It proves the bible wrong.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science. Thats philosophy, and as such is not viable to be taught in a science class. Thus if people wish to teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning then it should be in a philosophy class.
What a pretty straw man you've got there.

It proves the bible wrong.
No, it proves certain interpretations of the Bible wrong. Some dingbats think the stories in the Bible are meant to be interpretted literally, and those dingbats hate evolution because it shows how really dingbatty they are. But there are a great many Christians who agree that there wasn't a literal 6-day creation and so forth. Those Christians recognize that evolution doesn't have fuckall to say about religion. After all, they can still say, "Oh, well God created evolution!" That's the magic of religious belief...you can make it up as you go along, and it can fit anything you like.

how about we tech ones that at least a few people believe, which are also rational? In fact, I can't think of one religion (including evolution/darwinism/whatever) that is perfectly completely rational...
The theory of evolution is, by definition, perfectly rational.

Also, are you seriously advocating that we teach our kids false information if enough people decide they want it to be true? If enough dingbats think the world was created in 6 days, then we'll teach our kids that it was even if that is not the actual case?

Are you people deliberately trying to cripple your children, or are you just clueless?

Don't be so damd stupid. The god of genisis had been beaten to a pulp by science.
I'm just curious; what claims about God have been disproven?

No, it proves certain interpretations of the Bible wrong. Some dingbats think the stories in the Bible are meant to be interpretted literally, and those dingbats hate evolution because it shows how really dingbatty they are. But there are a great many Christians who agree that there wasn't a literal 6-day creation and so forth. Those Christians recognize that evolution doesn't have fuckall to say about religion. After all, they can still say, "Oh, well God created evolution!" That's the magic of religious belief...you can make it up as you go along, and it can fit anything you like.

It is clear that the writters of both creation stories in Genesis intended the seven days to be just that - 7 days of 24 hours. For thousands of years Jewish and Christian priests had held that to be true. Many people have been killed just for claiming the bible was not the litteral word of god.

Now, when science has proved the biblical creation to be a myth, those same priest would have people believe the bible is not literal at all.

Sorry, but if they were wrong for a few thousand years then they have to face the fact that their religion was founded on false grounds. As such, the credibility of any interpretation they now want people to believe is shattered.

I'm just curious; what claims about God have been disproven?

Just read Genesis, I can't find anything about god that hasn't been disproved. If you have a claim that you think still holds I would like to hear of it.

It has replace religion in explaining the universe to people.
The purpose of organized religion is to lead one's mind down a path towards a (hopefully positive and beneficial) philosophical outlook on life, one that, of course, influences one's thoughts and actions. It has nothing to do with explaining life, and everything to do how it is lived. Science has not replaced that; in fact, science is inadequate to providing a philosophy towards life since it must remain entirely objective.

Like the Creationists, you support a version of God that is unsustainable. Perhaps that is why you support it? Because it is the unsustainable one, and therefore more appealing?

Science addresses the immaterial every day, it even looks at the supernatural in an attept to make it just natural. What science has not done is to find a single scrap of evidence for the biblical god 9or any other gods for that matter).
The relevant definition of "the supernatural" for the purposes of discussion of this topic is:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Things beyond the visible observable universe are not subject to science.

Finding no evidence is just that --no evidence. One cannot logically point at no evidence and say its demonstrates a positive.

It one time everything needed the supernatural to explain it. Science converted all that to natural explinations. In fact it has done such a good job that what is left in the realm of the supernatural is now really the stuff of fairy tales.
That's all it ever was. That's all it need be.

The purpose of organized religion is to lead one's mind down a path towards a (hopefully positive and beneficial) philosophical outlook on life, one that, of course, influences one's thoughts and actions. It has nothing to do with explaining life, and everything to do how it is lived. Science has not replaced that; in fact, science is inadequate to providing a philosophy towards life since it must remain entirely objective.

Try reading "Origin and Purpose of the Concept of Religion" at:-

http://www.aristarchus.org/Origin_Religion1.php

His explination is fairly good.

Like the Creationists, you support a version of God that is unsustainable. Perhaps that is why you support it? Because it is the unsustainable one, and therefore more appealing?

I don't support ANY version of god.

The relevant definition of "the supernatural" for the purposes of discussion of this topic is:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

The COED gives the following:-

supernatural
n adjective
1 (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.
n noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.

Things beyond the visible observable universe are not subject to science.

Turning supernatural into natural has been the role of science since it began.

Finding no evidence is just that --no evidence. One cannot logically point at no evidence and say its demonstrates a positive.

One can. Especially when so many people have searched and still nothing has been found.

That's all it ever was. That's all it need be.

Good. Well I've grown up and put fairy tales behind me.

Everything I've read says there was a bit about the messiah, which was added in much later. And that there was nothing else even remotely related to christianity or christ in there.

Okay - the following two passages are the passages which are used to claim historical evidence for Jesus:

1) "But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."

This passage is considered likely to be 'reasonably' reliable... this isn't the one that all the fuss is made over.

Note that the passage is about James (BROTHER of Jesus, allegedly) - and paints Jesus as the 'so-called Christ'. This passage doesn't say he WAS Christ, or what that would mean in terms of life or miracles or any other factor.

2) "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day".

The parts that are italicised are the parts that are considered to be 'in question'... for several reasons:

(i) the structure of the italicised sections doesn't 'fit' with the rest of the passage... the plurality of the last italicised passage not even fitting with itself. This is not really Josephus' 'style'.

(ii) Josephus refers to Jesus as 'so-called Christ' in one of his mentions, but somehow accepts his Christ-status, and tales of miracles, in another section? It just doesn't fit.

(iii) The passage, including the italic sections, doesn't really fit with the text that surrounds it.

(iv) If genuine, the italicised components of the text would have been of HUGE importance to the early church... and yet Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen ALL fail to mention it.


So - most of the mention MUST have been 'added' AFTER Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen commented... which means these must NOT have been the actual words of Josephus.

Thus, the italicised passages MUST be considered either 'fake' or 'fraudulent'... they certainly were NOT the words of the man they are claimed to be the words of.


However, even if they HAD been Josephus' words - they would bear possible witness to the resurrection of Jesus (even though Josephus hadn't been at the crucifixion, or even BORN at the time)... and to the fact that there were many prophecies... and that the early Christian movement followed him.

None of which would have made him the 'Messiah' of the Jewish faith... a mistake Josephus is hardly likely to make, being a Jew, himself.

Just read Genesis, I can't find anything about god that hasn't been disproved. If you have a claim that you think still holds I would like to hear of it.
My point is that only the literalist version of God can be "disproved", and, as you have implicitly demonstrated, that is the version you rally against. Not all Christians hold to the literal account of the Bible; not even all Creationist do. Therefore the only thing that has been "disproven" is one version of God.

Try reading "Origin and Purpose of the Concept of Religion" at:-

http://www.aristarchus.org/Origin_Religion1.php

His explination is fairly good.
Okay, but in his introduction he says, "Using the universal laws of volitional behavior it is possible to prove that god is not volitional and, in fact, that god can exist only as a figment of human imagination."

And my response is, "yes, but it's supposed to be myth. The mythic symbolism is what the religion is founded on." This is the non-literalist interpretation of god. Morgan's assault is against the literalist version of god. The non-literalists' view looks favourably (or indifferently) upon those striking down the literalists' view, while happily maintaining their religion, undamaged and intact. Non-literally, god has symbolic signficance.

The modern scientific study of comparative mythology suggests that this is exactly what god was originally supposed to be, and that the concretization of the image is the mistake. It is a mistake made by both theists and atheists alike.

I don't support ANY version of god.
When you suggest that striking holes in the literalists' version of god defeats all of what god and religion is, then you do. You support just that one version of god.

The COED gives the following:-

supernatural
n adjective
1 (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.
n noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.

Turning supernatural into natural has been the role of science since it began.
With the definitional misunderstanding clarified, your stance makes more sense. Still, the definition I gave is the one we are using in this discussion. You are the odd man out.

One can. Especially when so many people have searched and still nothing has been found.
Not when our understanding and scope of the universe is so grossly limited by a subjective perspective.

My point is that only the literalist version of God can be "disproved", and, as you have implicitly demonstrated, that is the version you rally against. Not all Christians hold to the literal account of the Bible; not even all Creationist do. Therefore the only thing that has been "disproven" is one version of God.
That's because, perversely, only the literalist version of God makes itself scientifically accessable. The "non-literal" view of God is scientifically irrelevant.

My point is that only the literalist version of God can be "disproved", and, as you have implicitly demonstrated, that is the version you rally against. Not all Christians hold to the literal account of the Bible; not even all Creationist do. Therefore the only thing that has been "disproven" is one version of God.

But it IS the version of god that has existed for thousands of years. The new version has only come about because science proved the version which was taught for so long was false.

Now a false god trying to hid behind newer and ever more vague generalizations cannot, in all honesty, be taken seriously.

That's because, perversely, only the literalist version of God makes itself scientifically accessable. The "non-literal" view of God is scientifically irrelevant.
Yes, and one has to wonder at these people who hold science is such regard, as something that uncovers the truth of things, that they feel that personalized meanings of things must be scientifically discernable as well. As you say, the non-literal is scientifically irrelevant.

But it IS the version of god that has existed for thousands of years. The new version has only come about because science proved the version which was taught for so long was false.

Now a false god trying to hid behind newer and ever more vague generalizations cannot, in all honesty, be taken seriously.
So, now what I'm hearing you say is that because the literalist god was the politically popular one, it must be the right (or only) one?

No "new version" has come along at the behest of science. Comparative mythology does, after all, study ancient texts, poems and songs.

If you knew the leval of scientists I talk to you would realize how stupid your comments were - you would have to laugh at yourself.


Again - this is hollow rhetoric. Who are this scientists? What is their 'level'? Why would I 'laugh at myself'?

I wonder if you are labouring under the misapprehension that you are the only person in the world who might move in sceintific circles?


He would not get a job in a European collage. You cannot have an expert in a discipline that has no respect. And the only "high level" tag he has earbed for himself is that of high level idiot.


While I personally find Behe fairly comical, and very unscientific, it has to be admitted that, for what he DOES, HE is the expert.

Sorry, my friend, but right now you are not coming across as any more scientific than our erstwhile comrade in Intelligent Design.


Grannies and egg sucking spring to mind. If you cannot even understand the concept of thing being knowable then you have no business talking about science.


Perhaps you have never heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Although, how someone so 'eminently qualified' as you claim to be, could have missed it, I don't know?


40 years in science, technical editor/proof reader on dozens of science books, lecturing, advising - and always learning.


If this were true, it would not explain the unscientific approach you present...


Don't be so damd stupid. The god of genisis had been beaten to a pulp by science.


No... it really hasn't.

Saying 'we don't need god' is not the same as saying 'there IS no god'.

I haven't called you 'stupid', my friend... but you have started to maintain something of a pattern of doing it, just recently... first my comments are stupid, and now I am stupid. You are perhaps erring on the WRONG side of caution, my flaming friend.


Only an ID moron would really beleive that.


And now a moron, also?

Can you really be so certain of the non-existence of 'god', that you feel you can disprove the man behind the curtain?

Sorry - but that would be folly of the same degree as you attribute to the ID crowd.

The only LOGICAL - the only SCIENTIFIC - approach, is that we cannot discuss god through science. That neither proves nor disproves ANYTHING about the 'existence' of god.


If after 15,000,000,000 years god(s) have left not a single trace of evidence then it is very safe to say they don't exist.

Or we just haven't found 'him' yet.

My friend, it is one of the most BASIC precepts of science... you can NEVER 'prove' a negative.

Not much, mainly because most of it is tied up in myth and magic.


So - what? Celtic history didn't happen, because the stories about it have mythical heroes?

Science can explain everything. It may not do as yet, but you cannot claim it will not do in time.


Yes... you CAN claim that... and such a claim would be MORE scientific than claiming we COULD explain EVERYTHING.

Yes... you CAN claim that... and such a claim would be MORE scientific than claiming we COULD explain EVERYTHING.
Though I’m not sure if that’s true you reach a point where the uncertainty principal takes effect.

Okay, but in his introduction he says, "Using the universal laws of volitional behavior it is possible to prove that god is not volitional and, in fact, that god can exist only as a figment of human imagination."

And my response is, "yes, but it's supposed to be myth. The mythic symbolism is what the religion is founded on." This is the non-literalist interpretation of god. Morgan's assault is against the literalist version of god. The non-literalists' view looks favourably (or indifferently) upon those striking down the literalists' view, while happily maintaining their religion, undamaged and intact. Non-literally, god has symbolic signficance.

Religion is based on myths and the supernatural - but man invented religion to provide himself with answers that allowed him to understand the universe and to defined his place in the universe .

The modern scientific study of comparative mythology suggests that this is exactly what god was originally supposed to be, and that the concretization of the image is the mistake. It is a mistake made by both theists and atheists alike.

Remember, above all else, that man invented religion. Keep that in min d and you can't get lost.


When you suggest that striking holes in the literalists' version of god defeats all of what god and religion is, then you do. You support just that one version of god.


With the definitional misunderstanding clarified, your stance makes more sense. Still, the definition I gave is the one we are using in this discussion. You are the odd man out.


Not when our understanding and scope of the universe is so grossly limited by a subjective perspective.[/QUOTE]

So - what? Celtic history didn't happen, because the stories about it have mythical heroes?


There is little Celtic history of which anyone can be really certain. Most of what we know of them, other than from modern archeology, come from the Romans who were not exactly unbiased.

The supernatural has a place in the fairy stories of our childhood. It should have no place in the real world of adults.

The "fairy stories of our childhood" don't deal with the supernatural at all. In all of the stories I ever heard, the characters, no matter how amazing, were still bound by the rules of the universe - and were thus natural, within the bounds of the story.

Total and utter rubbish. Christianity arose from the needs of a small group of people who wanted to set up their own religion so they could reap the benefits rather than the leaders of the old religion. Pure greed - nothing more.

You are not aware then, I suppose, of the vast amount of writings of the early church completely dedicated to explaining that they were not a new religion and were, in fact, still Jewish?

No, it's just a totally random leap in logic. Even if the universe was created entirely by natural mechanisms, it does not follow that life has no meaning.

I agree. I didnt say it did follow. I hate it when people imply it does


So, you still believe that, in accordance with the scripture, the Earth is flat? After all, it's only scientific evidence that proves the Earth is not flat.

The Bible does not say the Earth is flat.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science. Thats philosophy, and as such is not viable to be taught in a science class. Thus if people wish to teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning then it should be in a philosophy class.

How on Earth could you "teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning"??? It's like saying, "Please don't teach mathematics in a way that implies the universe has no meaning." From a scientific or mathematics point of view, the type of "meaning" you are referring to is irrelevant - it isn't even a part of the consideration.

Science can explain everything. It may not do as yet, but you cannot claim it will not do in time.

The fun thing about science is that it can never stop questioning. Because of the logic of the scientific method, even if human beings actually got to a point that they could explain everything about the universe (which may or may not truly be "everything"), we wouldn't know that we knew it all! Science would continue to test and question every conclusion, would continue looking for smaller particles in the indivisible particle, would keep looking for more elucidation of the processes, and so on.

Science can explain everything. It may not do as yet, but you cannot claim it will not do in time.

Science cannot explain everything. It cannot establish whether or not life has a meaning, nor can it explain about art, literature etc. Any idea of the meaning of the universe is a philosophical idea. Even claiming there is no meaning is philosophical. Just because science cannot study it, doesnt mean to say it isnt there.


Evolution is taught in science class because it is a science.

Evolution as the chages to life forms over time yes. Evolution as the origin of life no. Abiogenesis has not been confirmed by any respectable scientist.

How on Earth could you "teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning"??? It's like saying, "Please don't teach mathematics in a way that implies the universe has no meaning." From a scientific or mathematics point of view, the type of "meaning" you are referring to is irrelevant - it isn't even a part of the consideration.

The sort of people who claim (with no good reason, or logic behind them) that evolution and the advancement of science in general disproves God's existance. Those sort of people are stupid because they do not understand the distinction between science and philosophy

The sort of people who claim (with no good reason, or logic behind them) that evolution and the advancement of science in general disproves God's existance. Those sort of people are stupid because they do not understand the distinction between science and philosophy
I've been in quite a few science classes, and not once did a teacher or professor EVER say that the advancement of science disproves God's existence.

It is clear that the writters of both creation stories in Genesis intended the seven days to be just that - 7 days of 24 hours.

What a silly thing to say, considering that only one of the creation stories mentions days at all. How could the writer of a creation story that had nothing whatsoever to do with seven days intend anything at all about the interpretation of those days? It is like saying that the maker of a chocolate chip cookie intended you to eat the raisins first.

Meanwhile, how is it so very clear? The Bible is full of metaphors and parables. Every human civilization has used stories to make points - and in those stories, the lesson to be learned was often the focus, not the literal truth of the stories.

For thousands of years Jewish and Christian priests had held that to be true.

Some have, some have not. Of course, there are many things that Christian priests have held to be true for a couple thousand years that were not present - or were even contradicted - in the early church. That doesn't make it true.

For quite a while, priests were telling women to "turn the other cheek" and go home to their wife-beating husbands. Of course, they had lost the historical interpretation of "turn the other cheek", which in fact gave slaves, women, others of low standing in society a way to avoid being hit - as, in the society of the time, turning the other cheek would make it so that your assailant could not hit you. Because society has changed and most people didn't pass down the history along with the command to turn the other cheek, people have come to think it means, "Let them hit you on the other side as well."



Shall I point you to early church writings, in which both the literal interpretations and metaphorical ones were discussed? Shall I point you to early church scholars who made it clear that the literal interpretation was the basest interpretation - and revealed no true understanding of the text?

[quote]Sorry, but if they were wrong for a few thousand years then they have to face the fact that their religion was founded on false grounds. As such, the credibility of any interpretation they now want people to believe is shattered.

If you had even a small clue about the actual history of the church, you would know how very silly this comment is.

With the definitional misunderstanding clarified, your stance makes more sense. Still, the definition I gave is the one we are using in this discussion. You are the odd man out.

You mean, of course, that it is the definition you are using in this discussion. The definition provided by Willamena is the more common definition on these forums - and is the one that most in this discussion have been using, if you would pay attention. Thus, I regret to inform you that you are, in fact, the "odd man out."

Evolution as the chages to life forms over time yes. Evolution as the origin of life no.

Evolutionary theory has not been, at any point in time, concerned with the origin of life.

Abiogenesis has not been confirmed by any respectable scientist.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with some evidence behind it. It is, however, irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

The sort of people who claim (with no good reason, or logic behind them) that evolution and the advancement of science in general disproves God's existance. Those sort of people are stupid because they do not understand the distinction between science and philosophy.

And that still doesn't answer my question. What you are suggesting is that some people would teach, in addition to teaching evolutionary theory, their own philosophy. That is not the same as teaching evolutionary theory itself in such a way as to imply that life has no meaning - or that God is disproven. And, of course, any science teacher who claims such a thing can be immediately punished or dismissed, as could any science teacher who claimed, "This is the theory of relativity. Therefore, God exists."

Science cannot explain everything. It cannot establish whether or not life has a meaning, nor can it explain about art, literature etc. Any idea of the meaning of the universe is a philosophical idea. Even claiming there is no meaning is philosophical. Just because science cannot study it, doesnt mean to say it isnt there.

Yes it can explain everything. Life is life, there is no meaning to it in the sense you seek to apply. Science does explain art etc. And like life, the universe just is.

Evolution as the chages to life forms over time yes. Evolution as the origin of life no. Abiogenesis has not been confirmed by any respectable scientist.

We do not have the conditions to replicate it, however we do understand it.

I've been in quite a few science classes, and not once did a teacher or professor EVER say that the advancement of science disproves God's existence.
Hell, I've been in science classes for the last DECADE and I've never had a science teacher claim that science disproves God. Indeed, most of them went out of their way to point out that God--like the rest of the supernatural--simply has no place in science.

I don't know where these kooks get the idea that scientists are trying to disprove God. Sure, we try to disprove many of the stupid supernatural God-RELATED ideas (like that psychosis is caused by Satan rather than by organic and psychological factors that can be empircally treated), but that doesn't mean we are out to "disprove" God.

Frankly, most scientists I know find the entire topic of God to be...well, boring. God can't be tested. God can't provide us with new testable hypotheses. God isn't something we can investigate with science, so scientists tend not to be terribly interested in talking about God. Some choose to believe in God in their private lives, but they tend to regard their God-belief in much the way I regard my preference in music...it certainly is something that is personally important to me, but it has no bearing on my life as a scientist because it's a purely subjective and private matter.

Evolutionary theory has not been, at any point in time, concerned with the origin of life.



Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with some evidence behind it. It is, however, irrelevant to evolutionary theory.



And that still doesn't answer my question. What you are suggesting is that some people would teach, in addition to teaching evolutionary theory, their own philosophy. That is not the same as teaching evolutionary theory itself in such a way as to imply that life has no meaning - or that God is disproven. And, of course, any science teacher who claims such a thing can be immediately punished or dismissed, as could any science teacher who claimed, "This is the theory of relativity. Therefore, God exists."
It's been far too long since I told you how much I love you, Demi. :)

Yes, and one has to wonder at these people who hold science is such regard, as something that uncovers the truth of things, that they feel that personalized meanings of things must be scientifically discernable as well. As you say, the non-literal is scientifically irrelevant.
I don't see why "one has to wonder." People want to believe there is some external source of answers for all the hard questions in life. While superstition is currently the most popular cop-out, there are certainly people who try to misuse science in a similar way.

This all stems from the fact that people want to believe there is always an objectively "right" answer and an objectively "wrong" answer, with the assumption that they can then learn how to be "right" as often as possible. It's hard to accept that there are questions to which we may never know any answer at all, and harder still to accept that there are questions that have an infinite number of "right" answers.

Yes it can explain everything. Life is life, there is no meaning to it in the sense you seek to apply. Science does explain art etc. And like life, the universe just is.



We do not have the conditions to replicate it, however we do understand it.

Hey, hey, and you prove once again what form your worship takes. Nothing more amusing to me that a guy who claims to discount all philosophy's value with his own philosophy. Your claims are not supported by science and never will be. They are philosophies that go against available evidence and thus as illogical as suggesting that disease is caused by demons.

"There is something invisible right there."
"No, there isn't and I can prove it."
"What? How?"
"Um, because if it were invisible I would have seen it."

I say we turn science into what Brenchley says it is and call it Science. Scientists could start wearing robes and Hawking could be their first Pope. Oh, darn, I forgot. He believes in logic. Sorry, Brenchley, you'll have to find someone who understands science at your level to be Pope. And then we can create a science for ID'ers called God Science and the answer for anything that appears to contradict a fundamentalist version of the Bible will be that if you try to prove it we'll set you on fire, assuming you agree to be a part of their version of science in the first place. That way science can be left to all of us in the middle that accept its purpose and limitations, cuz to be quite frank I'm tired of arguing with people who don't have a grasp of the most basic principles of science.

I don't see why "one has to wonder." People want to believe there is some external source of answers for all the hard questions in life. While superstition is currently the most popular cop-out, there are certainly people who try to misuse science in a similar way.

This all stems from the fact that people want to believe there is always an objectively "right" answer and an objectively "wrong" answer, with the assumption that they can then learn how to be "right" as often as possible. It's hard to accept that there are questions to which we may never know any answer at all, and harder still to accept that there are questions that have an infinite number of "right" answers.

I totally agree with everything but the last sentence. I think there are unlimited subjectively right answers but there is only one truth. It seems the only logically sound explanation.

The Bible does not say the Earth is flat.

Yes, it does. To be exact, the Earth is a flat disc which somehow still has four corners. It rests on pillars and does not move, and is suspended over nothing [not suspended by gravity over the sun]. The sun and moon are both 'lights' in the sky [the moon is not a reflective surface] and the stars are tiny objects that will fall from the sky on Judgement Day.

So, let's teach all of the following in astronomy, too!

Gen 1:16-18 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

[This implies that either the Earth stopped rotating, which would kill everyone on it, or that the sun is simply a light orbiting the stationary earth. It also mentions a book that isn't in the Bible.]

1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

[The Earth rests on pillars]

2 Kings 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

[The sun moves backwards ten degrees, again, to do this the Earth would have to rotate backwards, or the sun would have to be a light that orbited the Earth.]

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

[The Earth is stationary and does not move]

Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

[The Earth is set on pillars and only moves if God gets angry]

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.

[The Earth is suspended over nothing, not suspended over the sun by gravity as it actually is]

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Psalms 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Psalms 19:4-6 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

[The sun orbits the Earth]

Psalms 33:14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

[One of several references to someone being able to see the entire Earth from one position, something only possible if the Earth is flat]

Psalms 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

[The Earth rests on pillars]

Psalms 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

[The Earth rests on foundations]

Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

[The Earth does not move]

Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

[The Earth does not move]

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

[Another movement of the sun backwards]

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

[God sits above the Earth, which is a flat disc]

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Jeremiah 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

[The Earth is a flat surface with four corners]

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

[Daniel watches a stone become a mountian that covers the whole Earth. This would only be possible if the Earth was flat]

Daniel 4:10-11 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

[A tree can be seen 'to the end of all the Earth;' only possible if the Earth is flat]

Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

[The stars are tiny objects that can fall to Earth and be stamped on]

Micah 6:2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Habukkuk 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

[The sun stands still, again]

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

[You can see the entire Earth from the top of a mountain, therefore, the Earth is obviously flat]

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

[The moon produces it's own light, and the stars are tiny objects that can fall from the sky]

Mark 13:24-25 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

[The moon produces it's own light, and the stars are tiny objects that can fall from the sky]

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

[The Earth rests on foundations]

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

[Every eye shall see God, implying the Earth is flat]

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

[The stars are tiny objects which can fall to Earth]

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

[The Earth has four corners, and is therefore flat]

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

[Another star falls onto Earth. This one's a bit bigger!]

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

[Another star falls onto the Earth]

So, shall we teach all this nonsense as well, since obviously it's not science's place to prove it false?

I totally agree with everything but the last sentence. I think there are unlimited subjectively right answers but there is only one truth. It seems the only logically sound explanation.
So, to the question of "which ice cream flavor tastes the best," you believe there is one Truth?

Yes it can explain everything. Life is life, there is no meaning to it in the sense you seek to apply. Science does explain art etc. And like life, the universe just is.

How exactly can you prove the universe has no meaning? You cant. There is no way for science to prove that kind of thing. That is not what science is. Philosophy on the other hand can question the meaning of the universe. To say the universe, and life "just is" as you put it, is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. You cannot objectively prove the universe has no meaning. Therefore it is not scientific.

How exactly can you prove the universe has no meaning? You cant. There is no way for science to prove that kind of thing. That is not what science is. Philosophy on the other hand can question the meaning of the universe. To say the universe, and life "just is" as you put it, is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. You cannot objectively prove the universe has no meaning. Therefore it is not scientific.
Indeed. Science cannot prove WHAT THE MEANING IS, but that doesn't mean science has proven there is no meaning.

Put it another way: science cannot objectively evaluate the subjective awesomeness of various rock bands. However, that doesn't mean science has proven that all rock bands lack awesomeness.

But what many people do is take science too far and say "science can explain everything" which of course it cant. To say the universe has no meaning because science explains everything is not science. Thats philosophy, and as such is not viable to be taught in a science class. Thus if people wish to teach evolution in a manner which then implies the universe has no meaning then it should be in a philosophy class.
You are aware that evolution is taught for less than a month in highschool biology classes, aren't you? Well, at least the one I was in did. There wasn't nearly the time for anybody to say a damn thing about evolution implying the lack of existence of a deity.

Nor is anything related to any diety science.

So intelligent design has no place in science class just as a lack of a god has no place in a science class.

Science to religion: GTFO.

Religion is based on myths and the supernatural - but man invented religion to provide himself with answers that allowed him to understand the universe and to defined his place in the universe.
Yes, religions are most certainly founded in core mythologies, and some sort of supernatural beings are usually key mythic elements. As I said, this is the non-literalists' understanding of religion that utilizes allegory and symbolism. Myth, though, serves a much more useful role than explanation of natural phenomenon --if fact, it's really quite useless for that. The purpose of myth is to open the heart and mind and make them receptive to spiritual messages.

Remember, above all else, that man invented religion. Keep that in min d and you can't get lost.
Yes, man invented myth and religion to put a face to god.

How exactly can you prove the universe has no meaning? You cant. There is no way for science to prove that kind of thing. That is not what science is. Philosophy on the other hand can question the meaning of the universe. To say the universe, and life "just is" as you put it, is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. You cannot objectively prove the universe has no meaning. Therefore it is not scientific.

To ask if things like the universe or life have "meaning" is to ask the ridiculous. You can ask if a piece of art has meaning, but that is only really valid if you ask the artist.

Does the sun have "meaning"? Of course not - it is a product of nature, a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion. Does a plant have "meaning"? Of course not, it just grows.

Humans can attach a menaing ot things in the natural world, but they don't have intrensic meaning - they just are!

You mean, of course, that it is the definition you are using in this discussion. The definition provided by Willamena is the more common definition on these forums - and is the one that most in this discussion have been using, if you would pay attention. Thus, I regret to inform you that you are, in fact, the "odd man out."
That was mis-quoted on his part --it was something I'd said to him.

So, to the question of "which ice cream flavor tastes the best," you believe there is one Truth?

No, I would say there is no truth in that case.

Flavor is a perception. It tastes different to me than to you. So I can't group in that way. I can't say it tastes the best. I can only say it tastes the best to me. Otherwise, I can't be right, I can only be wrong.

No, I would say there is no truth in that case.

Flavor is a perception. It tastes different to me than to you. So I can't group in that way. I can't say it tastes the best. I can only say it tastes the best to me. Otherwise, I can't be right, I can only be wrong.
That's what I'm saying; there are many questions to which there is no "True" or "right" answer. Indeed, if you think about it, the majority of the "questions" that come up during our daily lives have no "right" or "wrong" answer.

Most people would agree that preference in ice cream flavor fits into that category. Personally, I believe all questions of morality and value fit into that category, but that's a whole other debate :).

To ask if things like the universe or life have "meaning" is to ask the ridiculous. You can ask if a piece of art has meaning, but that is only really valid if you ask the artist.

I disagree. A piece of art may have one meaning to the artist but another meaning to the viewer, and neither of them is "wrong."

To ask if things like the universe or life have "meaning" is to ask the ridiculous. You can ask if a piece of art has meaning, but that is only really valid if you ask the artist.

Does the sun have "meaning"? Of course not - it is a product of nature, a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion. Does a plant have "meaning"? Of course not, it just grows.

Humans can attach a menaing ot things in the natural world, but they don't have intrensic meaning - they just are!

Ha. To do that, one has to assume there is no 'artist'. You make an assumption and pretend you don't. You look at a painting and suggest paint just happened to fall that way, which is certainly possible and we look at it see the art of it and that it suggests an artist. You pretend that science can prove you're right and we aren't but science can't prove the non-existence of thing. It simply can't. You say making up a philosophy about the 'art' is childish and then you make a philosophy. That the painting just happened. Maybe it did, but you CANNOT know that anymore than you can know what color underwear I'm wearing when you've never met anyone who has ever either directly or indirectly seen them, you've never seen them and you've never been told about them. You pretend to KNOW something you have NO evidence for and then call anyone who contradicts you unscientific. To suggest that your premises are kind of illogical is like suggested the Hitler was kind of antisemetic.

That's what I'm saying; there are many questions to which there is no "True" or "right" answer. Indeed, if you think about it, the majority of the "questions" that come up during our daily lives have no "right" or "wrong" answer.

Most people would agree that preference in ice cream flavor fits into that category. Personally, I believe all questions of morality and value fit into that category, but that's a whole other debate :).

Ah, but the point is that there cannot be infinite truths. Only infinite things that are not true. If something is true something that is objectively different cannot also be true. Don't mix truth with right or wrong. If I have a halucination that a cat is in front of me and I say I saw a cat in front of me I am right that I saw it, but the truth is there is no cat in front of me.

Yes, man invented myth and religion to put a face to god.

No, man invented religion to explain what he could not understand.

In early religions every part of nature was endowed with its own godship or spirit. Gods and spirits in layers of power, good gods and bad gods in profusion.

The concept of an all powerful single god comes later, and even judao-christian religion still has lower levels of the supernatural beings so maybe their god isn't all powerful after all.

Anyway, to prove my point: (http://anthro.palomar.edu/religion/rel_1.htm)

What is Religion?

A religion is a system of beliefs usually involving the worship of supernatural forces or beings. Religious beliefs provide shape and meaning to one's perception of the universe. In other words, they provide a sense of order in what might otherwise be seen as a chaotic existence. Religions also provide understanding and meaning for inexplicable events such as a loved one being killed in an earthquake or some other unpredictable force of nature. For most religious people, their beliefs about the supernatural are at the very core of their world views.

Ah, but the point is that there cannot be infinite truths. Only infinite things that are not true. If something is true something that is objectively different cannot also be true. Don't mix truth with right or wrong. If I have a halucination that a cat is in front of me and I say I saw a cat in front of me I am right that I saw it, but the truth is there is no cat in front of me.
I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but my position is the same. I do not believe there is one Truth regarding any subjective matter, and I believe all "moral" and "value" judgments are subjective. I believe there is no objective "true" answer to the question "is it right to smack that guy upside the head?", just as I believe there is no "true" answer to the question "is strawberry a better flavor than vanilla?"

I disagree. A piece of art may have one meaning to the artist but another meaning to the viewer, and neither of them is "wrong."

I disagree, only the artist can attribute the real meaning to his/her work.

And of course, when we come to the universe or to life, there is no artist.

Yes, man invented myth and religion to put a face to god.
Odd, then, that there have been so many myths and religions that did not include "god."

I disagree, only the artist can attribute the real meaning to his/her work.
So only the man who makes the ice cream has a right to say which is the best flavor?


And of course, when we come to the universe or to life, there is no artist.
Well, then what are you arguing with me for? I say we're all equally entitled to find our own meaning in the universe, and you say we're all equally UNentitled to do so. Same difference.

To ask if things like the universe or life have "meaning" is to ask the ridiculous.

Philosophical viewpoint with no empirical backing.

You can ask if a piece of art has meaning, but that is only really valid if you ask the artist.

How do you know that the universe is not a piece of art? Why can the art not have meaning to the viewer, outside of what it mean to the artist? Can we not look at a piece of art or literature and glean meaning from it without directly conversing with the artist/author? If not, why the hell do we study Homer and Shakespeare and Monet, etc? None of us can directly converse with them, although we can find out all we can about them and posit what they might have seen as the "meaning" in their works.

Does the sun have "meaning"?

Perhaps. Obviously, you think it doesn't. Obviously, the ancient Egyptians sure as hell thought it did. Obviously, those who use the sun as a symbol of contentment or safety do.

Does a plant have "meaning"?

Why do people bring trees into their houses during the holidays? Why do people keep gardens and plants on their front porches? Why do people create art out of plants? Why is a rose used symbolically? Obviously, in some cases, a plant has all sorts of "meaning".

Humans can attach a menaing ot things in the natural world, but they don't have intrensic meaning - they just are!

Again, a philosophical viewpoint - and not the only one out there.

Of course, when people ask for "meaning" in the universe, they aren't asking for the significance of the sun or of a plant or of a given natural thing. They are generally asking why we exist, why the universe exists, why the universe is as it is. You may think that there is no answer - and that is just as valid a viewpoint as the viewpoint that there is an answer.

I may not give a care about everything but If I was in high school and the teacher gave me an ID book I'd give them the finger.

I disagree, only the artist can attribute the real meaning to his/her work.

And of course, when we come to the universe or to life, there is no artist.

Prove it.

Yes, it does. To be exact, the Earth is a flat disc which somehow still has four corners. It rests on pillars and does not move, and is suspended over nothing [not suspended by gravity over the sun]. The sun and moon are both 'lights' in the sky [the moon is not a reflective surface] and the stars are tiny objects that will fall from the sky on Judgement Day.

So, let's teach all of the following in astronomy, too!

Gen 1:16-18 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

[The moon produces it's own light]I guess implication is in the mind of the reader---where does it say what the source of the moon's light is?

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

[This implies that either the Earth stopped rotating, which would kill everyone on it, or that the sun is simply a light orbiting the stationary earth. It also mentions a book that isn't in the Bible.]and how would stopping the earth by the power of God kill everyone? That is assuming that God cannot control inertia...

1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

[The Earth rests on pillars] and don't forget, poor people come from dust, and beggars from dunghills! That's why they stink when they come up to me in the street, asking for change...

2 Kings 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

[The sun moves backwards ten degrees, again, to do this the Earth would have to rotate backwards, or the sun would have to be a light that orbited the Earth.]once again, what is wrong with an almighty God rotating the earth backward, with inertia under his complete control?

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

[The Earth is stationary and does not move]well, I guess you could put rockets at the south pole, and move the earth out of its orbit if you wish, but I'm not going for thatride!

Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

[The Earth is set on pillars and only moves if God gets angry]the implication to me is that earthquakes can occur if God gets angry, although it does not say that is the only way they can happen

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.

[The Earth is suspended over nothing, not suspended over the sun by gravity as it actually is]don't forget, he "stretcheth out the north"---God can put north where he wants it---past movement of the magnetic north pole? And when the astronauts look back at the earth from space, it does appear to be "suspended over nothing", doesn't it?

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

[The Earth is set on foundations]implies that the mantle is laid upon the core

Psalms 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

[The Earth is set on foundations]implies that a strong wind could expose the bottom of the sea, the outer boundaries of the continents

Psalms 19:4-6 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

[The sun orbits the Earth]don't forget, the sun "rejoiceth as a strong man", so it is not a light, but a man? Or could this be more metaphor? Oops, no metaphors allowed here! And I thought that only wacky fundamentalists took the Bible literally, in a wooden sense...

Psalms 33:14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

[One of several references to someone being able to see the entire Earth from one position, something only possible if the Earth is flat]implies that God is watching you from where he lives, where-ever you are---why would the earth need to be flat for almighty God to see anyone he wants to, at anytime, day or night?

Psalms 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

[The Earth rests on pillars]don't forget, the earth and all the inhabitants have been "dissolved" at this point---maybe the pillars are not material objects

Psalms 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

[The Earth rests on foundations]well, the continents are not floating on nothing, are they? Or is there no mantle?

Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

[The Earth does not move]and don't forget, God is wearing majesty and strength for clothing---what color does that come in?

Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

[The Earth does not move]implies that you don't have to worry about the whole world dissolving in a macro-level quantum extinction event at random, or by the machinations of man or devil

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

[The moon produces it's own light]or maybe, because the sun is darkened, the moon darkens also?

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

[The moon produces it's own light]once again, the moon's light is as the light of the sun, maybe it is reflecting the sun?

Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

[Another movement of the sun backwards]once again, why not? If you can do anything, why can't you rotate the earth backwards? And of course, the description of such an event would be from the perspective of the inhabitants of earth...

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

[God sits above the Earth, which is a flat disc]from what I have read, the "circle" is Hebrew for "sphere"---3 dimensions, not 2! And hey, looks like people are grasshoppers (he says, twitching his antennae), and God spreads out the heavens---expansion of space-time, right here!

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

[The moon produces it's own light]sun goes out, so does the moon---just what would be seen if that happened

Jeremiah 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

[The Earth is set on foundations]don't forget, if you can measure the universe, and fully explore the interior of the earth, God will stop protecting Israel!

Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

[The Earth is a flat surface with four corners]don't we still use that expression, "the four corners of the earth"? And don't we, in the 21st century, still use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset"? Guess nobody knows about that rotation thing, or maybe---metaphor alert?

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

[The moon produces it's own light]once again, the situation is, sun goes dark, so does the moon---as if the moon is a reflection of the sun!

Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

[Daniel watches a stone become a mountian that covers the whole Earth. This would only be possible if the Earth was flat]and when I go up on a mountain myself, all I can see is the mountain---guess that means the earth is flat!

Daniel 4:10-11 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

[A tree can be seen 'to the end of all the Earth;' only possible if the Earth is flat]that's a mighty big tree---visible from horizon to horizon! Wonder what his "vision" means? And should it be taken woodenly literally?

Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

[The stars are tiny objects that can fall to Earth and be stamped on]the stars here in context are the angelic host, the angels. And I guess they can be stepped upon=ouch!=

Micah 6:2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.

[The Earth is set on foundations]God is talking to the mountains again, as well as to the mantle of the earth---where is the ear fo the mountains again?

Habukkuk 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

[The sun stands still, again]once again, if you can do anything...

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

[You can see the entire Earth from the top of a mountain, therefore, the Earth is obviously flat]or maybe, the devil had satellite tv in his mountaintop penthouse? I rather think that this is a supernatural vision of the world's kingdoms, rather than a direct sighting, but who knows?

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

[The moon produces it's own light, and the stars are tiny objects that can fall from the sky]moon darkens after the sun darkens, the "stars" and "powers" are angels

Mark 13:24-25 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

[The moon produces it's own light, and the stars are tiny objects that can fall from the sky]same as before

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

[The Earth rests on foundations]God made everything, with his hands? Mighty big hands

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

[Every eye shall see God, implying the Earth is flat] or maybe he is flying through the clouds, circling the earth? Or is appearing on a supernatural projection tv?

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

[The stars are tiny objects which can fall to Earth]who says those stars/angels are tiny? I wouldn't, not to their face!

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

[The Earth has four corners, and is therefore flat]don't forget, the angels are "holding the four winds". Ethereal hands, perhaps?

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

[Another star falls onto Earth. This one's a bit bigger!]sounds like a poisonous meteor to me

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

[Another star falls onto the Earth]once again, the star is "given the key", meaning it's another angel---they sure are busy!

So, shall we teach all this nonsense as well, since obviously it's not science's place to prove it false?

Please, yes, let us teach the Bible in school, like they used to, back when people were more literate...:)

To ask if things like the universe or life have "meaning" is to ask the ridiculous. You can ask if a piece of art has meaning, but that is only really valid if you ask the artist.

Does the sun have "meaning"? Of course not - it is a product of nature, a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion. Does a plant have "meaning"? Of course not, it just grows.

Humans can attach a menaing ot things in the natural world, but they don't have intrensic meaning - they just are!

You cannot prove that in a scientific fashion. The series of statements you have just said you did not arrive at by a scientific method. Your ideas are not scientific here. They are ideas, and they have a validity of a kind, but they are philosophical ones and not scientific and thus are exceptionally difficult (some would say impossible) to prove objectively true. Certianly they cannot be proven true in a scientific manner

To ask if things like the universe or life have "meaning" is to ask the ridiculous. You can ask if a piece of art has meaning, but that is only really valid if you ask the artist.

Does the sun have "meaning"? Of course not - it is a product of nature, a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion. Does a plant have "meaning"? Of course not, it just grows.

Humans can attach a menaing ot things in the natural world, but they don't have intrensic meaning - they just are!
That is the difference between the subjective point of view and the objective. From our subjective perspective, they have meaning. Both points of view are valid; one eliminates meaning, and the other provides it.

No, man invented religion to explain what he could not understand.

In early religions every part of nature was endowed with its own godship or spirit. Gods and spirits in layers of power, good gods and bad gods in profusion.

The concept of an all powerful single god comes later, and even judao-christian religion still has lower levels of the supernatural beings so maybe their god isn't all powerful after all.

Anyway, to prove my point: (http://anthro.palomar.edu/religion/rel_1.htm)

What is Religion?

A religion is a system of beliefs usually involving the worship of supernatural forces or beings. Religious beliefs provide shape and meaning to one's perception of the universe. In other words, they provide a sense of order in what might otherwise be seen as a chaotic existence. Religions also provide understanding and meaning for inexplicable events such as a loved one being killed in an earthquake or some other unpredictable force of nature. For most religious people, their beliefs about the supernatural are at the very core of their world views.
Actually, your little blurb presents two different hypotheses: religion as providing meaning to the universe, to give one a sense of "order" (defining their place in the universe); and religion as providing meaning to an event by including the supernatural, which is "at the very core of their world views," in that event. This is tanamount to "because God said so," and that is not providing any explanation of an event, like an earthquake, in the way science does. And to suggest that our ancestors thought it did is to make them out to be fools. Their own religious literature (including the Bible) demonstrates otherwise; that they were clever and understood well the use of allegory.

As you can see for yourself, the definitions of religion vary; there are as many as their are theological philosophers: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
And that's a good thing. What they all have in common is man with a personal relationship with his concept of divinity. Or as Robert Bellah puts it, "a set of symbolic forms and acts that relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence."

I totally agree with everything but the last sentence. I think there are unlimited subjectively right answers but there is only one truth. It seems the only logically sound explanation.
So, to the question of "which ice cream flavor tastes the best," you believe there is one Truth?So, to the question of "which ice cream flavor tastes the best," you believe there is one Truth?
Furthermore even science decrees that truth depends on the perspective, that truth is subjective.

For example: How fast are you moving right now? What is the absolute truth answer?

Furthermore even science decrees that truth depends on the perspective, that truth is subjective.

For example: How fast are you moving right now? What is the absolute truth answer?

That things are relative does eliminate their truth. You merely expose a limitation of our language not of absolute truth.

That things are relative does eliminate their truth. You merely expose a limitation of our language not of absolute truth.
Truth is always relative to the observer. Absolute truth does not exist to anyone bound by the physical laws of this Universe.

Truth is always relative to the observer. Absolute truth does not exist to anyone bound by the physical laws of this Universe.

Absolute truth by definition is not relative. And existence is not realitive only one's acceptance or knowledge of it. Absolute truth is not available to one bound by the physical laws of this Universe. That has no effect on its existence.

Thread...so...large...must...procreate....

Absolute truth by definition is not relative. And existence is not realitive only one's acceptance or knowledge of it. Absolute truth is not available to one bound by the physical laws of this Universe. That has no effect on its existence.It excludes its existence from anyone observing an event/object happening/ed within this Universe: For us, or anything we can observe, there is no empricial absolute truth. Thus one could argue that absolute truth in our universe is an illusion and does not, can not exist in reality.

It's also good to notice that absolute truths can exist even for us within abstract fields of study that are out of context of (observable/ed) reality, like mathematics or logic.

I do acknowledge that there *can* be absolute truth apparent to an outside observer: If this universe, for example, would be a computer simulation then one could argue that the computer, or its users, would be able to know or decipher absolute states within the simulation. However this is in no way relevant to our sphere of reality: For us there would still be no absolute truth.

It excludes its existence from anyone observing an event/object happening/ed within this Universe: For us, or anything we can observe, there is no empricial absolute truth. Thus one could argue that absolute truth in our universe is an illusion and does not, can not exist in reality.

It's also good to notice that absolute truths can exist even for us within abstract fields of study that are out of context of (observable/ed) reality, like mathematics or logic.

I do acknowledge that there *can* be absolute truth apparent to an outside observer: If this universe, for example, would be a computer simulation then one could argue that the computer, or its users, would be able to know or decipher absolute states within the simulation. However this is in no way relevant to our sphere of reality: For us there would still be no absolute truth.

It doesn't exist in our perception of reality. Arguing that ignorance negates existence is silly. If that's the case i could argue that I know everything since anything I don't know I'm not aware of.

There is little Celtic history of which anyone can be really certain. Most of what we know of them, other than from modern archeology, come from the Romans who were not exactly unbiased.

Rubbish.

Most of what we know about the Celtic migrations, we got from the Celts... who were ALSO not exactly unbiased... and maybe used a little metaphor in the telling.

What a silly thing to say, considering that only one of the creation stories mentions days at all.

In fact, 'days' is only ONE possible translation, anyway... and NOWEHER does it say they MUST BE literal 24 hour days.

It would be crazy to even assume that... what with the sun not being created for the first... what... 2 'days'?

It doesn't exist in our perception of reality. Arguing that ignorance negates existence is silly.First you'd have to argue that absolute truth exists: You would have to have some evidence, like logical deduction, for its positive existence before you can logically argue for it.

As of now, stating that it exists ex-reality doesn't have any relevance: It might or might not exist. However for us it does not exist therefore it begs the question 'Why would it exist for anyone even outside our reality?' - Stating that absolute truth exists is purely a metaphysical *belief*.

If that's the case i could argue that I know everything since anything I don't know I'm not aware of.If you choose to believe that then it's your right.

In fact, 'days' is only ONE possible translation, anyway... and NOWEHER does it say they MUST BE literal 24 hour days.

It would be crazy to even assume that... what with the sun not being created for the first... what... 2 'days'?

Sorry to disappoint you, but the days in Genesis, in context, are literal 24-hour days.

That is why it makes of point of saying over and over, "evening and morning, the first day" "evening and morning, the second day" etc.

Omit all the textual evidence, and then you can say that days=|=days.

And the light from before the sun was created was from the collapsing universe. And since time is relative, while from Earth it appeared to be six days, from the edge of the universe, it appeared to be billions of years...

Sorry to disappoint you, but the days in Genesis, in context, are literal 24-hour days.

That is why it makes of point of saying over and over, "evening and morning, the first day" "evening and morning, the second day" etc.

Omit all the textual evidence, and then you can say that days=|=days.

And the light from before the sun was created was from the collapsing universe. And since time is relative, while from Earth it appeared to be six days, from the edge of the universe, it appeared to be billions of years...

I'm not disappointed my friend, but your assertion has no more validity than mine, now does it?

First - even in the translation, it does not say anything about days being 24 hours... only that they consist of two different periods (the light and the dark) and that God called those periods 'Day and Night' and 'morning and evening'.

Nowehere does it say that the light is literal light, or the dark literal dark.

Nowhere does it say that the morning was a literal morning, or the evening a literal evening.

Nowhere does it say the 'day' is a literal day, or the 'night' a literal night.

In fact - since the story clearly dictates that the sun didn't exist for the first two days... the light must have been some kind of 'spiritual light'... maybe the same 'light' as the 'light of the world' in the New Testament.

Thus - the first 'day' can NOT have been a regular day, as we know it... and the first 'morning' cannot have been a 'morning' as we know it.

The 'evening' and the 'dark' are obviously just the absences of whatever makes the first 'day' a thing of 'light'.

It is EASILY possible to read each of the 'days' as referring to, for example, epochs of creation... so, on 'day' could actually be hundreds of billions of years, and still work within the text.

It is ALSO worth remembering that there is a parallel between, for example, one day, and a thousand years, in Biblical scripture... and that, following on from that, a 'thousand' is actually often metaphorical in Hebrew... merely meaning 'too many to count'.


And that is before we even get to the Hebrew... which shows us the word translated as 'day', meaning 'a period of time', a 'day', a 'working day', a 'year', a 'time', a 'lifetime', 'today', 'yesterday' or even 'tomorrow'.

The word translated as 'day' (Yowm), is translated variously in scripture... sometimes it means 'Chronicles', 'daily', 'ever', 'continually', 'when', 'as', 'while'... even as 'whole'.

There is certainly NO reason to suspect that 'Yowm' MUST mean a literal day.

I could continue... but I don't see the need to assess EVERY word for it's Hebrew connotation, when it is obvious that both the English AND Hebrew versions allow FAR GREATER meaning than just 'a 24 hour day'.

First you'd have to argue that absolute truth exists: You would have to have some evidence, like logical deduction, for its positive existence before you can logically argue for it.

False. Many philosophies have not evidence but can be logically argued for. And technically, you're arguing that there is only subjective reality which is an assertion with no evidence as well. As far as evidence, it's pretty clear that whether we are aware of it or not there are many aspects of reality of we are unaware of. They didn't come into existence the day we became aware of them. That's a logical argument against only subjective reality. What's your evidence that a fish that no one has seen doesn't exist?

As of now, stating that it exists ex-reality doesn't have any relevance: It might or might not exist. However for us it does not exist therefore it begs the question 'Why would it exist for anyone even outside our reality?' - Stating that absolute truth exists is purely a metaphysical *belief*.

If you choose to believe that then it's your right.
Ok, that was a complicated way to not say anything. Of course it's metaphysical. Are you trying to say that our perception of reality is our perception of reality? Wow, profound. You assume again that what we are aware of is all that exists and that if we are unaware of it, it serves no purpose. This is your belief. If you choose to believe that then it's your right. However, in my world it doesn't have any relevance. I don't search for perception, I search for truth.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the days in Genesis, in context, are literal 24-hour days.

That is why it makes of point of saying over and over, "evening and morning, the first day" "evening and morning, the second day" etc.

Omit all the textual evidence, and then you can say that days=|=days.

And the light from before the sun was created was from the collapsing universe. And since time is relative, while from Earth it appeared to be six days, from the edge of the universe, it appeared to be billions of years...

Really? Is all that based on textual evidence? You're right days are days. God showed the prophets visions and the visions took days but that doesn't mean the creation took days. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's really the only belief that adheres to all textual evidence. And even matches up with all scientific evidence as well. Any other perception requires one to ignore the inconsistencies of the various creation references.

Truth is always relative to the observer. Absolute truth does not exist to anyone bound by the physical laws of this Universe.
Is that true?

(Hint: if yes, then it's absolute)

Please, yes, let us teach the Bible in school, like they used to, back when people were more literate...:)

Right, so your entire position is the classic 'let's interpret the embarassing parts of the Bible figuratively' ride? Why, then, should we interpret the creation stories literally? And no, the Hebrew word used is not the one for 'sphere.'

The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in the verse is chuwg. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was a sphere, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr, a word he does use in Isaiah 22:18. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.

If Isaiah wanted to tell us the world was a sphere, he would have used a different word. A circle is not a sphere, any more than a square is a cube. But then you're also arguing that a reflective surface can be called a 'light,' another ridiculous logical backflip to hide from an obvious error.

You're also playing Slothful induction. There is not one single clear reference to the Earth as anything but a flat surface in the Bible; there are descriptions of events that could only occur on a flat Earth, events that are easily accomodated if the Earth is flat and immobile [like the sun moving backwards]...You are only trying to reinterpret the literal statements of the Earth's flatness because other means, science, have demonstrated the Bible's statements on the shape of the Earth to be foolish.

Do not confuse 'literate' with 'dishonest.' Your ad-hoc list of non-arguments and distortions can't change that, taken as a whole, the scripture describes an Earth which is flat and immobile.

And the light from before the sun was created was from the collapsing universe. And since time is relative, while from Earth it appeared to be six days, from the edge of the universe, it appeared to be billions of years...


What "collapsing universe"???

Rubbish.

Most of what we know about the Celtic migrations, we got from the Celts... who were ALSO not exactly unbiased... and maybe used a little metaphor in the telling.

We have lots of legends and myths from the Celts, but very little real history.

You cannot prove that in a scientific fashion. The series of statements you have just said you did not arrive at by a scientific method. Your ideas are not scientific here. They are ideas, and they have a validity of a kind, but they are philosophical ones and not scientific and thus are exceptionally difficult (some would say impossible) to prove objectively true. Certianly they cannot be proven true in a scientific manner

Science does not recognize the concept of meaning as you want to use it.

"Any idea of the meaning of the universe is a philosophical idea. Even claiming there is no meaning is philosophical. Just because science cannot study it, doesnt mean to say it isnt there."
*snip*
Science does not recognize the concept of meaning as you want to use it.
You have conceded his point: there are things that science does not recognize/study/investigate/care about.

First you'd have to argue that absolute truth exists: You would have to have some evidence, like logical deduction, for its positive existence before you can logically argue for it.

As of now, stating that it exists ex-reality doesn't have any relevance: It might or might not exist. However for us it does not exist therefore it begs the question 'Why would it exist for anyone even outside our reality?' - Stating that absolute truth exists is purely a metaphysical *belief*.

If you choose to believe that then it's your right.
Your definition of absolute existence is too limited to form your argument. You seem to be limiting it to physical existence, and ignoring metaphysical existence. Your argument cannot survive this way, as things can be absolute and conceptual. The "metaphysical *belief*" exists.

Truth is always relative to the observer. Absolute truth does not exist to anyone bound by the physical laws of this Universe.
I'd take it a step further; since "truth" exists ONLY in the mind of the observer, there is no absolute Truth. There may or may not be absolute physical realities (we honestly can never answer that, if you think in Matrix-like terms), but there definitely is not any absolute Truth when it comes to matters of morality and value...those are inherently subjective concepts, and cannot--by definition--have absolute forms independent from the observer(s).

Your definition of absolute existence is too limited to form your argument. You seem to be limiting it to physical existence, and ignoring metaphysical existence. Your argument cannot survive this way, as things can be absolute and conceptual. The "metaphysical *belief*" exists.
No belief can be objectively absolute, by definition.

No belief can be objectively absolute, by definition.
Is that true?

Is that true?
Well, hmm, let me try to clarify what I'm saying. In retrospect, it is a bit confusing...

Beliefs are nothing more or less than the product of higher brain functions within a given individual. Those brain functions exist, empirically, and we can measure them independently using a variety of really kickass technologies. In that sense, belief can exist "objectively." However, beliefs are not external, and they only exist within the brain that is generating them.

In other words, if you killed all living human beings, none of the beliefs, values, or morals humans have generated would still remain in the universe. Another life form might come along, and it might start using values similar to ours (as selection principles suggest that certain life forms might do), but that does not mean the values themselves are objective "things" that exist on their own. "Truth" is a concept invented by and for the human mind, and cannot be absolute any more than preference in ice cream flavor can be absolute.

Well, hmm, let me try to clarify what I'm saying. In retrospect, it is a bit confusing...

Beliefs are nothing more or less than the product of higher brain functions within a given individual. Those brain functions exist, empirically, and we can measure them independently using a variety of really kickass technologies. In that sense, belief can exist "objectively." However, beliefs are not external, and they only exist within the brain that is generating them.

In other words, if you killed all living human beings, none of the beliefs, values, or morals humans have generated would still remain in the universe. Another life form might come along, and it might start using values similar to ours (as selection principles suggest that certain life forms might do), but that does not mean the values themselves are objective "things" that exist on their own. "Truth" is a concept invented by and for the human mind, and cannot be absolute any more than preference in ice cream flavor can be absolute.
What is this "thing"? Why is it in quotes? How can something be, and not be a thing?

In terms of existence, absoluteness refers to that "it is or it is not". In terms of truth, absoluteness refers to "it is true or it not". It does not refer to a physical existence. The objectivity of it is how it is true independently of the subjective, individual observer; in other words, it is true for the conceptual objective observer. Objectivity removes a concept from the human and "gives it a life of its own"; it conceptually stands alone. If you then remove all subjective observers (the humans who generate this abstracted objective viewpoint and these truthful ideas) does that make the ideas, as things, any less true?

What is this "thing"? Why is it in quotes? How can something be, and not be a thing?
Your preference in ice cream exists, yet it is not an objective "thing" that exists apart from you. If you die, it's not like there will be some "Spirit of Willamena's Ice Cream Preference" floating around in the ether.


In terms of existence, absoluteness refers to that "it is or it is not". In terms of truth, absoluteness refers to "it is true or it not". It does not refer to a physical existence.

Depends on who is defining the terms :).


The objectivity of it is how it is true independently of the subjective, individual observer; in other words, it is true for the conceptual objective observer. Objectivity removes a concept from the human and "gives it a life of its own"; it conceptually stands alone. If you then remove all subjective observers (the humans who generate this abstracted objective viewpoint and these truthful ideas) does that make the ideas, as things, any less true?
Answer your own questions: if I say, "Strawberry ice cream is the best flavor," is that idea "true"? Can it conceptually "stand alone"? Remember, I'm not saying "My favorite flavor is strawberry," I'm saying "Strawberry IS the best flavor." Remove all subjective observers; does the relative deliciousness of strawberry ice cream remain as an objective quality?

You have conceded his point: there are things that science does not recognize/study/investigate/care about.

No. He assumes the universe or life has some mystical "meaning". Science does not recognize things as having "meaning" in the sense he tries to use. It is not a case of study/investigate or care about, it is a case that neither the universe or life can have meaning in the sense it wants them to - it is not a concept that can be applied to either.

Your preference in ice cream exists, yet it is not an objective "thing" that exists apart from you.
The existence or not of the subjective preference might be objective though.

If you die, it's not like there will be some "Spirit of Willamena's Ice Cream Preference" floating around in the ether.
No more than there is a 'Queen Elizabeth I is alive' floating around in the ether, but either Queen Elizabeth the I was a alive and so the truth of her liveness for a duration of time is objectively true, or it is not objectively true. We might not ever be able to know either way, but the possibility that the premise 'Queen Elizabeth I was for some duration of time alive' is objectively true, exists.

Depends on who is defining the terms :).
Answer your own questions: if I say, "Strawberry ice cream is the best flavor," is that idea "true"?
What do you mean by best flavour?

Can it conceptually "stand alone"?
Hard to know without knowing what is intended by terms such as best.

Remember, I'm not saying "My favorite flavor is strawberry," I'm saying "Strawberry IS the best flavor."
Remove all subjective observers; does the relative deliciousness of strawberry ice cream remain as an objective quality?
I dont believe so, because I suspect that subjective observers are a necessary condition for the existence of deliciousness.

The existence or not of the subjective preference might be objective though.

Again, it depends on your definition of "objective." I can measure the brain functions giving rise to your preference, so in that sense the preference is "real." However, it is not an external "thing" like a chair or a pen, a "thing" that would exist if you stopped existing. Your preference is a creation of your own mind.


No more than there is a 'Queen Elizabeth I is alive' floating around in the ether, but either Queen Elizabeth the I was a alive and so the truth of her liveness for a duration of time is objectively true, or it is not objectively true. We might not ever be able to know either way, but the possibility that the premise 'Queen Elizabeth I was for some duration of time alive' is objectively true, exists.

You are confusing the statement with the concept. Sorry if the language is a bit unclear, here. The existence or non-existence of Queen Elizabeth can be externally, "objectively" tested. The "bestness" of Willamena's favorite flavor of ice cream is not a quality that exists externally.

Put it another way: we can test whether strawberry ice cream has ever existed, but we cannot empirically attribute to it the quality of "best ice cream flavor" because that is a subjective judgment. Similarly, we can determine whether Queen Elizabeth ever had the quality of existing, but we cannot determined whether she had the quality of being "the best queen ever." Matters of opinion are not qualities that are objectively "real." Rather, opinions are subjective evaluations of features that a "real" object possesses. The same quality of one object may be both "best" and "worst" depending on who you talk to, because the "bestness" and "worstness" do not exist in the object...they exist "in" the individuals.


What do you mean by best flavour?

Best. Better than all other flavors.

Hard to know without knowing what is intended by terms such as best.

Not really. Best refers to this ice cream flavor being better than all other ice cream flavors.


I dont believe so, because I suspect that subjective observers are a necessary condition for the existence of deliciousness.
Exactly. Just as subjective observers are necessary for the existence of the "bestness" or "rightness" or "Truth" of a given thing.

Again, it depends on your definition of "objective."
The definition in this instance refers to objective in the sense of 'absolute truth', and absolute truth.

I can measure the brain functions giving rise to your preference, so in that sense the preference is "real." However, it is not an external "thing" like a chair or a pen, a "thing" that would exist if you stopped existing. Your preference is a creation of your own mind.
External to what? The cells that make up my heart are not things external to my heart, they might still objectively exist, although if my heart stopped existing the cells might also cease to exist.

You are confusing the statement with the concept.
No I am trying to express the seperation of the statement from the concept it communicates.
Sorry if the language is a bit unclear, here. The existence or non-existence of Queen Elizabeth can be externally, "objectively" tested. The "bestness" of Willamena's favorite flavor of ice cream is not a quality that exists externally.
Externally to what? Why is external a significant factor in determining the objective truth of the existence of a subjective preference? That a subjective preferer must necessarily exist for an objective preference to exist does not necessitate that the subjective preference cannot objectively exist.

Put it another way: we can test whether strawberry ice cream has ever existed, but we cannot empirically attribute to it the quality of "best ice cream flavor" because that is a subjective judgment.
The fact that 'X is the best ice cream flavour' might well be a statement empty of truth value doesnt necessitate that object truth cannot exist.

Similarly, we can determine whether Queen Elizabeth ever had the quality of existing, but we cannot determined whether she had the quality of being "the best queen ever."
Similarily we have an statement that doesnt necessarily have a truth value. That doesnt refute the existence of absolute truth.

Matters of opinion are not qualities that are objectively "real."
Matters of opinion could be objectively real and very probably (in my opinion) are.

Rather, opinions are subjective evaluations of features that a "real" object possesses.
None of which neccessitates that the objective existence of subjective opinions is impossible.

The same quality of one object may be both "best" and "worst" depending on who you talk to, because the "bestness" and "worstness" do not exist in the object...they exist "in" the individuals.
I dont believe so. I believe the same quality can be judged both best and worst. That is not the same as the quality actually having the property 'objectively best'

Best. Better than all other flavors.
And by better you mean....?

Not really. Best refers to this ice cream flavor being better than all other ice cream flavors.
Better is simply a rephrasing of best.

Exactly. Just as subjective observers are necessary for the existence of the "bestness" or "rightness" or "Truth" of a given thing.
I dont believe there is any reason to suppose the above though, unless absolute truth exists.

Please, yes, let us teach the Bible in school, like they used to, back when people were more literate...:)

None of your explanations involve taking the Bible literally - as Creationists would do. If you take something like, "The sun stood still in the sky," to be literal, you can't turn it around and say, "Well, actually, you see, it was the Earth that stood still!"

The definition in this instance refers to objective in the sense of 'absolute truth', and absolute truth.

In that case, then, there subjective preference is not objective.


External to what? The cells that make up my heart are not things external to my heart, they might still objectively exist, although if my heart stopped existing the cells might also cease to exist.

Um, that's because your cardiac cells are physical components of your heart. We could mush your heart up until it was no longer a functioning heart but still have the cardiac cells. However, as I explained, the "bestness" of an ice cream flavor is not a part of the ice cream...it is a part of the individual.


No I am trying to express the seperation of the statement from the concept it communicates.

Ooookaaaay.


Externally to what? Why is external a significant factor in determining the objective truth of the existence of a subjective preference?

Because there is a basic distinction between an object that can be experienced by multiple observers, and the subjective experience each observer has of that object. All observers will (if we assume materialism to be valid) perceive essentially the same basic features of, for instance, a pen, but their "feelings" or opinions about the pen may not be the same. This is because their individual "feelings" are not contained within the pen, they are contained within the individuals.


That a subjective preferer must necessarily exist for an objective preference to exist does not necessitate that the subjective preference cannot objectively exist.

What objective preference?


Similarily we have an statement that doesnt necessarily have a truth value. That doesnt refute the existence of absolute truth.

Well, it does refute the idea that every subject has an Absolute Truth. Personally, I believe that there IS a chair sitting to my left, and that's the kind of "Truth" that is objectively real. I also happen to believe that chair is ugly as sin, but I don't believe that its ugliness is "True" in any objective sense.


Matters of opinion could be objectively real and very probably (in my opinion) are.

Please elaborate.

[/quote]
I dont believe so. I believe the same quality can be judged both best and worst. That is not the same as the quality actually having the property 'objectively best'
[/quote]
Then what determines the objective "bestness" of the object?


And by better you mean....?

Better (adj) Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.

Better is simply a rephrasing of best.

Incorrect. I am better at winning table tennis than my brother. But I am most certainly not the best at winning table tennis.


I dont believe there is any reason to suppose though unless absolute truth exists.
Meh. I believe subjective value and moral judgments are subjective. Indeed, it's such an obvious idea to me that I'm having trouble verbalizing it...it's like if somebody asked me to explain why I believe that a chair is not a tuna fish.

No. He assumes the universe or life has some mystical "meaning". Science does not recognize things as having "meaning" in the sense he tries to use.

Good, good. You are speaking of science and what science is and is not concerned with. You are correct that science does not concern itself with the philosophical or teleological "meanings" of things.

It is not a case of study/investigate or care about, it is a case that neither the universe or life can have meaning in the sense it wants them to - it is not a concept that can be applied to either.

And here you get into a philosophical statement well outside of science. You can't say, "Science doesn't recognize this, therefore it doesn't exist." It is like saying, "Science doesn't recognize religion, therefore it doesn't exist." What you are saying, in fact, is, "I, Brenchley, do not personally believe that the universe or life have any meaning in the sense which he is using."

No. He assumes the universe or life has some mystical "meaning". Science does not recognize things as having "meaning" in the sense he tries to use. It is not a case of study/investigate or care about, it is a case that neither the universe or life can have meaning in the sense it wants them to - it is not a concept that can be applied to either.

Wow, somebody is finally accepting what we've been arguing for several weeks. Science does not address meaning in any way. It hasn't proven meaning exists or doesn't or what that meaning is in any way whatsoever. Science doesn't recognize it, does not mean it doesn't exist. It means it falls outside the limitations of science. It cannot be scientifically proven that yesterday I thought about my childhood. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, only that science has no opinion of it.

In that case, then, there subjective preference is not objective.
I dont see that such a conclusion logically follows from the premise posited.

Um, that's because your cardiac cells are physical components of your heart. We could mush your heart up until it was no longer a functioning heart but still have the cardiac cells. However, as I explained, the "bestness" of an ice cream flavor is not a part of the ice cream...it is a part of the individual.
I'm not convinced ice cream has 'bestness'. When ice cream is described as 'best' either a statement without truth value is being made or 'best' refers to unstated assumptions. The fact that we can string together words to make empty statements that are neither true or false, does not prove the non-existence of truth and falsity.

Ooookaaaay.
Because there is a basic distinction between an object that can be experienced by multiple observers, and the subjective experience each observer has of that object.
That doesnt suggest the non-existence of objective truth.

All observers will (if we assume materialism to be valid) perceive essentially the same basic features of, for instance, a pen, but their "feelings" or opinions about the pen may not be the same. This is because their individual "feelings" are not contained within the pen, they are contained within the individuals.
To be contained in something surely necessitates existing.

What objective preference?
How do you mean what objective preference. Tautologically preferences are not objective. That is not the same as the existence of preferences not being objective. Why would preferences necessarily be anything (including subjective) if absolute truth didnt exist? Why would anything be 'necessarily so' if objective absolute truth didnt exist? The very fact that subjectiveness is necessarily distinct from objectiveness requires that there be some objective truth. However the existence of objective truth does not require that subjectiveness cannot exist as a constituent of objective truth.

Well, it does refute the idea that every subject has an Absolute Truth.
Every subject? It is not necessary that every living creature eat hotdogs in order for the eating of hot dogs to be an existent occurence.

Personally, I believe that there IS a chair sitting to my left, and that's the kind of "Truth" that is objectively real.
I suspect you are probably right.

I also happen to believe that chair is ugly as sin, but I don't believe that its ugliness is "True" in any objective sense.
I suspect you are right about that as well, but I also suspect that your subjective belief about the ugliness of the chair can objectively exist.

Please elaborate.
I believe that entities capable of forming opinions are real objectively existing phenomenon.

Then what determines the objective "bestness" of the object?
Bestness for or in relation to what?

Better (adj) Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
Positive and desirable in nature is empty valued unless you posit the desirer.

Incorrect. I am better at winning table tennis than my brother. But I am most certainly not the best at winning table tennis.
Actually if it is true that you are better at winning table tennis than your brother, then between yourself and your brother you are best at table tennis.

Meh. I believe subjective value and moral judgments are subjective.
I believe that is true.

Indeed, it's such an obvious idea to me that I'm having trouble verbalizing it...it's like if somebody asked me to explain why I believe that a chair is not a tuna fish.
Aha, I could comment similarily on the objective existence of subjective judgements. How can anything be necessarily subjective unless the qualities of subjective were neccessitated by some objectively existing neccessitator?

We have lots of legends and myths from the Celts, but very little real history.

Again... how can you support arguing this - when you KNOW you know nothing about the Celtic accounts?

The stages of war between the Tuatha de Danann, the Daoine Sidhe, the Fir Bolg and the Fomorian.... even the Ellyllon... match historical evidence for the migrations of the Celts across Europe. The Celtic myths follow, not only the order in which the successive migrations arrived in Ireland, but also WHERE they arrived... even those that arrived in Wales, for example.

Perhaps characters have been illustrated as more colourful than their true historic counterparts, but elements of the old stories about where the Kindly Ones based their occupations, and who fought who, etc, are borne out by historical finds.

And - if you know this little about the 'meaning' of Celtic lore, how can you claim to know anything about the 'meaning' of Hebrew stories?

No. He assumes the universe or life has some mystical "meaning". Science does not recognize things as having "meaning" in the sense he tries to use. It is not a case of study/investigate or care about, it is a case that neither the universe or life can have meaning in the sense it wants them to - it is not a concept that can be applied to either.

So - you admit that there are some things (human interactions, the WAY they communicate, the 'symbols' they use... the deeper meanings to individuals) which are not able to have their 'meaning' recognised by science.

These things have no true quantative or qualitative value to science... and, thus, cannot be truly appraised by science.

Though you may hate to have to face it, you are admitting that there are some answers science can never give...

So - you admit that there are some things (human interactions, the WAY they communicate, the 'symbols' they use... the deeper meanings to individuals) which are not able to have their 'meaning' recognised by science.

These things have no true quantative or qualitative value to science... and, thus, cannot be truly appraised by science.

Though you may hate to have to face it, you are admitting that there are some answers science can never give...

Hehe. Sometimes hypocracy knows no bounds, huh?

Hehe. Sometimes hypocracy knows no bounds, huh?

That's not the thing that bothers me so much, actually.... it is the 'la la la I can't hear you'... approach. A sort of wilful ignorance, perhaps?

Example:

1) Science can answer any question. (which is, obviously, an illogical assumption...)

2) God cannot be 'factored' in science...

therefore...

3) la la la I can't hear you.... God doesn't exist...

whereas, the more logical third stage would surely have been:

3) Science cannot answer questions about God.

Answer your own questions: if I say, "Strawberry ice cream is the best flavor," is that idea "true"? Can it conceptually "stand alone"? Remember, I'm not saying "My favorite flavor is strawberry," I'm saying "Strawberry IS the best flavor." Remove all subjective observers; does the relative deliciousness of strawberry ice cream remain as an objective quality?
Opinions are subjective; but some concepts, in fact most concepts, are objective, and some of them absolute. Truth is one of those.

"Best" is always an evaluation, and therefore in regards to an individual, it is an opinion.

Truth can conceptually stand alone. Strawberry ice cream may be the best to you, but if so, then it is undeniably true that strawberry ice cream is the best to you.

No. He assumes the universe or life has some mystical "meaning". Science does not recognize things as having "meaning" in the sense he tries to use. It is not a case of study/investigate or care about, it is a case that neither the universe or life can have meaning in the sense it wants them to - it is not a concept that can be applied to either.
He specifically said they were philosophical, therefore they have meaning to man.

Matters of opinion are not qualities that are objectively "real."
Matters of opinion could be objectively real and very probably (in my opinion) are.
Opinion is necessarily subjective, by definition. Neither are opinions "real" in the sense of objective reality --they remain unreal things that exist in the mind. We have, however, developed a "sister" meaning for "real" to address things in the mind, in the sense of genuineness and actuality of intent. The opinion of best flavour is genuinely my opinion of best flavour --it is "really" best to me.

However, "objectively real" and "objectively absolute" are different things entirely. Reality specifically has to do with the physical universe, by default; absolutes do not. A concept, like truth, can be absolute while having no physical reality.

Rather, opinions are subjective evaluations of features that a "real" object possesses.
None of which neccessitates that the objective existence of subjective opinions is impossible.
There is no way for a subjective opinion to become objective. It belongs to the individual alone, his to posses, and this goes for any sense of the word "objective". Subjective is literally "of the individual or group".

EDIT: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what "objective", "subjective", "absolute" and "real" are. I use basic philosophical definitions, which can be found at the Importance of Philosophy (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/) website.

On the objectivity of concepts, I came across this at the website:
Although a concept is built from particular entities*, it is not tied to those specific entities. If those entities were changed or destroyed, the concept would still be intact, but would no longer include those particulars. The concept combines any entities with those particular characteristics. It encompasses any entity with those particular characteristics, past, present, or future.

*things, in the physical or mental "world".

That's not the thing that bothers me so much, actually.... it is the 'la la la I can't hear you'... approach. A sort of wilful ignorance, perhaps?

Example:

1) Science can answer any question. (which is, obviously, an illogical assumption...)

2) God cannot be 'factored' in science...

therefore...

3) la la la I can't hear you.... God doesn't exist...

whereas, the more logical third stage would surely have been:

3) Science cannot answer questions about God.

Yeah, but that's what's funny because he usually reaches the number 3 conclusion through the 1 and 2 arguments but he argues against 1 all of the sudden when he realizes that 1 would also support ID.

He specifically said they were philosophical, therefore they have meaning to man.

What meaning can they possible have?

Something mad by man can have meaning, something that just "is" can't. You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.

What meaning can they possible have?

Something mad by man can have meaning, something that just "is" can't. You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.

And what evidence do you base that assumption on?

And what evidence do you base that assumption on?

No need for evidence, it isn't an assumption. Read what was written as it is self explanatory.

No need for evidence, it isn't an assumption. Read what was written as it is self explanatory.

It isn't an assumption in and of itself, but it is based upon the assumption that only human beings can make anything that have meaning or can attribute meaning to anything. It assumes that anything "just is". These are both unfalsifiable and untestable assumptions. Therefore, you have taken them on faith, just as religious person takes on faith that there is something else out there.

No need for evidence, it isn't an assumption. Read what was written as it is self explanatory.

So you don't mean they "can't" but that you don't think they do. I see. Because not too long ago you claimed that science has found them to be without meaning. There is a significant difference between understanding that you are spouting your beliefs and that you and others reasonably have your own beliefs about what is objectively true and claiming that your beliefs have objectively negated the beliefs of others.

It isn't an assumption in and of itself, but it is based upon the assumption that only human beings can make anything that have meaning or can attribute meaning to anything. It assumes that anything "just is". These are both unfalsifiable and untestable assumptions. Therefore, you have taken them on faith, just as religious person takes on faith that there is something else out there.

Bingo.

Opinion is necessarily subjective, by definition.
A lie is necessarily not true, but the existence of a lie can be true. Opinions are subjective, but it is entirely possible that subjective opinions have objective existence.

Neither are opinions "real" in the sense of objective reality
If objective reality exists then either opinions do not exist or opinions are a constituent of objective reality. It is my belief that there is objective reality and that there are opinions. So it is necessarily my belief that subjective opinions are part of objective reality.

--they remain unreal things that exist in the mind.
If something exists, I dont believe that something can not be a part of reality. If by real you mean 'a constituent of reality' then anything that exists in any way is 'real'.

We have, however, developed a "sister" meaning for "real" to address things in the mind, in the sense of genuineness and actuality of intent. The opinion of best flavour is genuinely my opinion of best flavour --it is "really" best to me.
If objective reality exists, and you have an opinion about the best flavour of ice cream, then that opinion exists in reality and is a constituent of reality.

However, "objectively real" and "objectively absolute" are different things entirely. Reality specifically has to do with the physical universe, by default; absolutes do not. A concept, like truth, can be absolute while having no physical reality.
Objective reality does not mean only those things that are material.

There is no way for a subjective opinion to become objective.
I dont see anyway for subjective opinions to be existent unless they exist as part of objective reality.

It belongs to the individual alone, his to posses, and this goes for any sense of the word "objective". Subjective is literally "of the individual or group".
The individual is not alone, the individual is a constituent within reality, not an outside observer of it. The individual and all that an individual does (including the forming and holding of subjective opinions) take place within and are formative of objective reality.

It seems to me that in making such a statement you are probably assuming an erroneous dichotomy. How does one get from 'of the individual or group' to 'excluded from objective reality'? Unless the individual or group doesnt exist within objective reality, then whatever is of the individual or of the group must necessarily be of objective reality.

EDIT: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what "objective", "subjective", "absolute" and "real" are. I use basic philosophical definitions, which can be found at the Importance of Philosophy (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/) website.

I think the confusion arises more from framing in the sense of levels of inclusion and exclusion.

If I tell a lie the lie is both untrue and true. The proposition presented by the lie is the untruth, the lie itself becomes a constituent of 'absolute truth'. That is why the statement 'X lied' can be true.
Now apply this to subjective opinions. If a subjective opinion exists then it is both subjective and objective. The subjectivity is a quality of what exists (the opinion), but the objectivity is of the existence of the opinion. Just as objective reality includes the phenomena 'the telling of lies' so to does it include the phenomena 'subjective opinions'.

The other aspect of confusion lies in assuming the categorical dichotomy 'subjective/objective' exists in objective reality as a mutually exclusive binary. In fact objective reality encompasses and includes subjectivity.

What meaning can they possible have?

Something mad by man can have meaning, something that just "is" can't. You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.
"Meaning" is necessarily subjective, although I've had a discussion about this with a NS friend and have yet to re-evaluate my opinion on this. Our discussion concered the objective nature of the "meaning" of words.

You need only read poetry to find some people's meaning in things.

What meaning can they possible have?

Something made by man can have meaning, something that just "is" can't. You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.
And what evidence do you base that assumption on?
I don't disagree with this. Nature has no inherent intent in what it does, and therefore no inherent meaning. Meaning comes from mankind, and is only relevent to mankind, and is only from the subjective perspective.

However, it is undeniable that Man, the Observer, sees things from the subjective perspective. There is no avoiding that. Whatever mankind perceives, man-made or natural, he will assign some meaning to it. That is unavoidable. It *has to* mean something in order to make sense.

What meaning can they possible have?

Something made by man can have meaning, something that just "is" can't. You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.
What meaning can't they have to man? A sunny day can mean happiness; a gloomy night can mean sorrow. Just look at poetry to find what meaning the images can have.

It isn't an assumption in and of itself, but it is based upon the assumption that only human beings can make anything that have meaning or can attribute meaning to anything. *snip*
Again, it's not so much about human beings being the only ones who can assign meaning, as it is that the human's consciousness is the only one we can speak with any certainty about, and therefore any authority about.

3) Science cannot answer questions about God.

Well, depends on the question. If it's 'Does the Great Forest Spirit make the grass grow?' science can determine that the grass grows according to predictable and measurable mechanisms that appear to operate without interference, therefore it's unlikely the Great Forest Spirit has an active role in making the grass grow...

In any case, religion can't really answer questions about God either. If you ask, say 'Why didn't the God in Genesis make the world in five days, or two?' there's no way to generate a satisfactory answer.

A lie is necessarily not true, but the existence of a lie can be true. Opinions are subjective, but it is entirely possible that subjective opinions have objective existence.
A lie is a false witness testamonial, the opposite of a truthful witness testmonial. It is "not true" in that it does not represent a true testamonial, and while the existence of the lie can be objectively true, this does not indicate an objectivity of opinion. The existence of the lie is an absolute: it either is or it isn't; and the existence of the lie is not the opinion expressed. The lie-thing is different from the content-of-the-lie-thing.

Neither are opinions "real" in the sense of objective reality --they remain unreal things that exist in the mind.
If objective reality exists then either opinions do not exist or opinions are a constituent of objective reality. It is my belief that there is objective reality and that there are opinions. So it is necessarily my belief that subjective opinions are part of objective reality.

If something exists, I dont believe that something can not be a part of reality. If by real you mean 'a constituent of reality' then anything that exists in any way is 'real'.
The "existence of objective reality" does not negate or deny the existence of conceptual things. You are limiting the definition of existence to things that are real --and that doesn't apply, even in our English language. Things can and do "exist in the mind". The tool of the mind is imagination, and things that exist there are not real. The idea concieved is not real until it is brought out in paper, or in word, actualized. The imagining there is not real, but stands in contrast to reality. The imaginings, the thoughts (the content thereof) are not "a part of reality". If I imagine a purple elephant, that does not mean there is a real purple elephant in my head.

For concepts that are "objectively absolute", the absoluteness does not refer to reality, it refers to the truth of a thing: yes or no. Is is truthful for everyone involved? then it is objective.

If objective reality exists, and you have an opinion about the best flavour of ice cream, then that opinion exists in reality and is a constituent of reality.
The reality of any opinion is that it is genuinely an opinion (that is, the truth).

However, "objectively real" and "objectively absolute" are different things entirely. Reality specifically has to do with the physical universe, by default; absolutes do not. A concept, like truth, can be absolute while having no physical reality.
Objective reality does not mean only those things that are material.
I believe we are in agreeance. Subjective things can be real in that they are truthful.

There is no way for a subjective opinion to become objective.
I dont see anyway for subjective opinions to be existent unless they exist as part of objective reality.
Subjective things have a conceptual existence. When an architect imagines a building before drawing it in detail, it exists conceptually before being actalized. That concept is entirely unreal.

The individual is not alone, the individual is a constituent within reality, not an outside observer of it.
The individual is alone because it is an individual within reality. This is the subjective perspective.

It belongs to the individual alone, his to posses, and this goes for any sense of the word "objective". Subjective is literally "of the individual or group".
The individual and all that an individual does (including the forming and holding of subjective opinions) take place within and are formative of objective reality.
So you deny that there are unreal things? The formation of the unreal things takes place in the imagination of the mind. The brain is real, the mind is not. They are two distinct things, one real and one unreal.

It seems to me that in making such a statement you are probably assuming an erroneous dichotomy. How does one get from 'of the individual or group' to 'excluded from objective reality'? Unless the individual or group doesnt exist within objective reality, then whatever is of the individual or of the group must necessarily be of objective reality.
The subjective perspective is that seen from the individual, group or thing looking outward; the objective perspective is abstracted apart from the individual, group or thing. Whether the objective opinion is garnered from testamony of others or from an imagined objective observer, it is abstracted from the subjective, and therefore exclusive of it. We cannot escape the subjective perspective; but we can and do abstract an objective perspective that does not include the subjective.

EDIT: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what "objective", "subjective", "absolute" and "real" are. I use basic philosophical definitions, which can be found at the Importance of Philosophy website.
I think the confusion arises more from framing in the sense of levels of inclusion and exclusion.

If I tell a lie the lie is both untrue and true. The proposition presented by the lie is the untruth, the lie itself becomes a constituent of 'absolute truth'. That is why the statement 'X lied' can be true.
Now apply this to subjective opinions. If a subjective opinion exists then it is both subjective and objective. The subjectivity is a quality of what exists (the opinion), but the objectivity is of the existence of the opinion. Just as objective reality includes the phenomena 'the telling of lies' so to does it include the phenomena 'subjective opinions'.

The other aspect of confusion lies in assuming the categorical dichotomy 'subjective/objective' exists in objective reality as a mutually exclusive binary. In fact objective reality encompasses and includes subjectivity.
The lie is not both untrue and true. It cannot be, and still be asbolute. It is either true or it is not. Its existence is true, while its content is not, but those are two different things. The existence of the lie is not the content of the lie. The "constituent of absolute truth" refers to its existence, not its content.

The same goes for the opinion: opinions exist and cannot be denied, but the content of those opinions is often denied, as is evidenced by the threads on this forum. They are two different things, one real and one unreal.

So you deny that there are unreal things? The formation of the unreal things takes place in the imagination of the mind. The brain is real, the mind is not. They are two distinct things, one real and one unreal.

That's nonsense. Unreal things don't exist, because they aren't real. What you're doing is as ridiculous as claiming there must be an opposite of cheese.

That's nonsense. Unreal things don't exist, because they aren't real. What you're doing is as ridiculous as claiming there must be an opposite of cheese.
As I said earlier, I am using the philosopher's definition of existence, where the concept of existence is simply "it is". An imagined thing "is" --it is an imagined thing. The alternative is that it has no properties whatsoever, and if it did we could not talk about it as it would be nothingness.

This is the definition of existence that is supported in our language. We talk about imagined things as things that are. We talk about them "existing only in the mind". This is existence, different from physical existence but still in existence.

I don't disagree with this. Nature has no inherent intent in what it does, and therefore no inherent meaning. Meaning comes from mankind, and is only relevent to mankind, and is only from the subjective perspective.

However, it is undeniable that Man, the Observer, sees things from the subjective perspective. There is no avoiding that. Whatever mankind perceives, man-made or natural, he will assign some meaning to it. That is unavoidable. It *has to* mean something in order to make sense.

You're guessing. As has been mentioned already there is both the meaning found by the observer and the meaning ascribed by the creator of a thing. We were talking about the latter. Given that we can't really 'know' or observe anything about the creator in this case it's impossible to 'know' that there is or is not meaning. To suggest that it is definitely one or the other to offer a philosophy which according to Brenchley is for children.

That's nonsense. Unreal things don't exist, because they aren't real. What you're doing is as ridiculous as claiming there must be an opposite of cheese.

And once again, I find out what Wild Cherry Pepsi feels like in my nose. Why do I was read the good posts when I'm drinking?

You're guessing. As has been mentioned already there is both the meaning found by the observer and the meaning ascribed by the creator of a thing. We were talking about the latter. Given that we can't really 'know' or observe anything about the creator in this case it's impossible to 'know' that there is or is not meaning. To suggest that it is definitely one or the other to offer a philosophy which according to Brenchley is for children.
If it is impossible to know if there is a creator who provides meaning, as you say, then it would seem that you are the one who is guessing.

I am not guessing that man provides meaning to things, I am simply using the word as defined: "to have in the mind as a purpose; to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate; to have importance to the degree of; to have an intended purpose..." Each definition for meaning requires an intelligent agent to recognize "purpose", "importance" and to "show or indicate" things to.

If it is impossible to know if there is a creator who provides meaning, as you say, then it would seem that you are the one who is guessing.

I am not guessing that man provides meaning to things, I am simply using the word as defined: "to have in the mind as a purpose; to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate; to have importance to the degree of; to have an intended purpose..." Each definition for meaning requires an intelligent agent to recognize "purpose", "importance" and to "show or indicate" things to.

If you say ONLY man, then you are guessing. If you say man can provide meaning then you are not. If we are talking about the intent/purpose/meaning assigned upon the creation of the universe and its laws by its creator if it has one then the only scientific answer is that science cannot address that. Brenchley claims science can address that and finds that there is no meaning and in claiming so has shown a complete lack of understanding of science. This was what I was addressing and it was accurate when I said it and remains accurate now.

If you say ONLY man, then you are guessing. If you say man can provide meaning then you are not. If we are talking about the intent/purpose/meaning assigned upon the creation of the universe and its laws by its creator if it has one then the only scientific answer is that science cannot address that. Brenchley claims science can address that and finds that there is no meaning and in claiming so has shown a complete lack of understanding of science. This was what I was addressing and it was accurate when I said it and remains accurate now.
Man's is the only intelligence we can speak with any authority about. Man does provide meaning; he can and he does. Nature has no intent, no purpose, no inherent meaning; that is what sets us apart from it. Intelligence has intent; nature operates without intelligence. This is the stance that the atheist must take, as there is no allowance for a god in nature. It is correct for him.

Again, it's not so much about human beings being the only ones who can assign meaning, as it is that the human's consciousness is the only one we can speak with any certainty about, and therefore any authority about.

In truth, the only consciousness you can speak with certainty about is your own, and even then there is some uncertainty.

However, we aren't talking about certainty here. We are talking about possibility. According to Brenchley, there is absolutely no possibility that there is a Creator that would ascribe meaning to the existence of the Universe, and of human beings. Thus, he is making a huge assumption - basically, that there is no such being. The rest of us are simply pointing out that there very well might be a Creator of some sort, and it very well might ascribe meaning to its creation.

Man's is the only intelligence we can speak with any authority about. Man does provide meaning; he can and he does. Nature has no intent, no purpose, no inherent meaning; that is what sets us apart from it. Intelligence has intent; nature operates without intelligence. This is the stance that the atheist must take, as there is no allowance for a god in nature. It is correct for him.

All of this is acceptable so long as the atheist realizes s/he is making a leap of faith. You can't KNOW that nature operates without intelligence only that it appears to. You are arguing a point that can't be considered scientific, which is fine so long as you don't argue that it is. Brenchley argued that his point is scientific. Science is not atheist, it's agnostic.

What meaning can they possible have?

Something mad by man can have meaning, something that just "is" can't. You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.

On the contrary, my friend... and remember, I'm an Atheist, also...

You don't 'see' any meaning in... a tree, for example... and there might not be any... it might JUST be a tree...

But, then again, maybe 'a tree' is just one symbol in a cosmic design?

Just because you (or I) don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Indeed... such symbols, if they DO exist, arguably aren't FOR the likes of us, anyway...?

"Meaning" is necessarily subjective, although I've had a discussion about this with a NS friend and have yet to re-evaluate my opinion on this. Our discussion concered the objective nature of the "meaning" of words.

You need only read poetry to find some people's meaning in things.

Absolutely. One mans' waterfall, is another mans' emotions, run rampant...

Absolutely. One mans' waterfall, is another mans' emotions, run rampant...

And one man's snake is another's Satan. Oh, wait, let's not go there.

How about one man's snake in another altogether seperate and dirtier mind...

Well, depends on the question. If it's 'Does the Great Forest Spirit make the grass grow?' science can determine that the grass grows according to predictable and measurable mechanisms that appear to operate without interference, therefore it's unlikely the Great Forest Spirit has an active role in making the grass grow...


However 'unlikely' Science finds the Great Forest Spirit, and his lawn expanding policies... has no bearing on the actual existence of that Spirit, does it?

I mean, maybe the Great Forest Spirit CAUSES the predictable and measurable mechanism?


In any case, religion can't really answer questions about God either. If you ask, say 'Why didn't the God in Genesis make the world in five days, or two?' there's no way to generate a satisfactory answer.

Actually, if you turn off your 'science brain' for a moment, you can see that religion can EASILY generate a 'satisfactory answer'.... God is ineffable... if God did it in five days, five days is the RIGHT amount of time.... it's that simple.

Also... five days, two days.... it isn't for us to understand the logic of the Creator. His mind is not OUR mind.

That's nonsense. Unreal things don't exist, because they aren't real. What you're doing is as ridiculous as claiming there must be an opposite of cheese.

You need to play "Kingdom of Loathing", my friend... you would soon learn the error of your ways, when you first encountered 'anti-cheese'.

And one man's snake is another's Satan. Oh, wait, let's not go there.

How about one man's snake in another altogether seperate and dirtier mind...

There goes my Dr Pepper.... :D

There goes my Dr Pepper.... :D

Oh, dang, Dr. Pepper is the worst one, too. That's why I stopped drinking it. It hurts the ol' nasal passages. My dad actually thinks the reason I studied electronics is because I got tired of buying new equipment after I spit soda or water all over when someone made me laugh.

On a side note, why is it that my father who has been fixing electronic equipment for over forty years couldn't work the VCR as soon as he broke 60?

On the contrary, my friend... and remember, I'm an Atheist, also...

You don't 'see' any meaning in... a tree, for example... and there might not be any... it might JUST be a tree...

But, then again, maybe 'a tree' is just one symbol in a cosmic design?

Just because you (or I) don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Indeed... such symbols, if they DO exist, arguably aren't FOR the likes of us, anyway...?

If someone sees "meaning" in something like a tree then I would be very worried about them.

If someone sees "meaning" in something like a tree then I would be very worried about them.

Kind of similar to how we would be worried about someone who thinks science can determine that there is/are no God/gods. The only difference is that our worry is based on a rational certainty while yours requires a leap of faith. Although, I don't tend to condemn men of faith, like some unfortunate people.

Denial, it's not a just a river in Egypt.

Kind of similar to how we would be worried about someone who thinks science can determine that there is/are no God/gods. The only difference is that our worry is based on a rational certainty while yours requires a leap of faith. Although, I don't tend to condemn men of faith, like some unfortunate people.

Denial, it's not a just a river in Egypt.


I don't know what it takes to get something through your thick skull.

Science has, layer by layer, removed the need for gods to explain the universe. There is now no place for god in the post Big Bang universe. While science cannot, as yet, answer all questions, it has already laid enough of the foundations for us to know that one day it will have all the answers.

There is no room left for a god, all the places for him to hide are gone.

You should stop posting silly comments and face the facts - there is no god.

I don't know what it takes to get something through your thick skull.

Science has, layer by layer, removed the need for gods to explain the universe. There is now no place for god in the post Big Bang universe. While science cannot, as yet, answer all questions, it has already laid enough of the foundations for us to know that one day it will have all the answers.

There is no room left for a god, all the places for him to hide are gone.

You should stop posting silly comments and face the facts - there is no god.

Ha. How very scientific of you? I mean it goes against the very foundation of science, but hey, what does the scientific method and all that follow it have to do with anything when it's more important to pretend you can prove something you can't?

You and ID'ers have a lot in common, my friend. You both have no idea about the limitations of science.

But then, I'm just silly in that I understand the scientific method and whether it actually believes in 'facts'.

I understand why you're bitter though, I've insulted your FAITH. I take it all back. Science will know everything despite the accepted limitations of the scientific method, even things about which it will NEVER study. Science has proven there is no God. I apologize for trying inject logic and understanding of the nature of science into your worship of it. You are entitled to your faith.

Oh, and what it takes to get something through my thick skull (I actually did just have an MRI and it's quite a bit thicker than average. Good thing that has nothing to do with the access ideas have to my brain.) is a little logic and reason. When you employ some, you'll find me much more receptive. As long as you try use your faith to 'prove' that people of faith are naive children, I will continue to point and giggle. Sorry, it's an involuntary reaction to things that don't make any logical sense in even the most basic way.

Oh, dang, Dr. Pepper is the worst one, too. That's why I stopped drinking it. It hurts the ol' nasal passages. My dad actually thinks the reason I studied electronics is because I got tired of buying new equipment after I spit soda or water all over when someone made me laugh.

On a side note, why is it that my father who has been fixing electronic equipment for over forty years couldn't work the VCR as soon as he broke 60?

Yep... Dr Pepper is arguably the fizziest carbonated drink out there... especially if you re-issue it at high velocity, through your nose. :)

About the VCR and being 60 thing... I think there's a rule about it, somewhere. :) Why is it my 7-year-old daughter worked out how to 'one-click' access subtitles and alternate voice-tracks on my PS2, long before I did?

Yep... Dr Pepper is arguably the fizziest carbonated drink out there... especially if you re-issue it at high velocity, through your nose. :)

About the VCR and being 60 thing... I think there's a rule about it, somewhere. :) Why is it my 7-year-old daughter worked out how to 'one-click' access subtitles and alternate voice-tracks on my PS2, long before I did?

Yeah, exactly. Or my nephew at two could reach out and hit the keyboard when he felt I wasn't paying enough attention to him and force me to rebuild the entire machine. These stupid kids and their new-fangled contraptions. I've got a XBox 360 coming in a couple of weeks, does this mean I need to let my neices and nephews teach me how to use it?

Denial, it's not a just a river in Egypt.

And now, I spat pretzel on my keyboard....

If someone sees "meaning" in something like a tree then I would be very worried about them.

Why?

Because they might see something you don't?

What you have, my friend... is not 'evidence'... but 'prejudice'.

Yeah, exactly. Or my nephew at two could reach out and hit the keyboard when he felt I wasn't paying enough attention to him and force me to rebuild the entire machine. These stupid kids and their new-fangled contraptions. I've got a XBox 360 coming in a couple of weeks, does this mean I need to let my neices and nephews teach me how to use it?

Evidence seems to support it. :D

Ha. How very scientific of you? I mean it goes against the very foundation of science, but hey, what does the scientific method and all that follow it have to do with anything when it's more important to pretend you can prove something you can't?

You and ID'ers have a lot in common, my friend. You both have no idea about the limitations of science.

You really can't be THAT stupid - can you?

But then, I'm just silly in that I understand the scientific method and whether it actually believes in 'facts'.

I understand why you're bitter though, I've insulted your FAITH. I take it all back. Science will know everything despite the accepted limitations of the scientific method, even things about which it will NEVER study. Science has proven there is no God. I apologize for trying inject logic and understanding of the nature of science into your worship of it. You are entitled to your faith.

Careful, your stupidity is showing.

Oh, and what it takes to get something through my thick skull (I actually did just have an MRI and it's quite a bit thicker than average. Good thing that has nothing to do with the access ideas have to my brain.) is a little logic and reason. When you employ some, you'll find me much more receptive. As long as you try use your faith to 'prove' that people of faith are naive children, I will continue to point and giggle. Sorry, it's an involuntary reaction to things that don't make any logical sense in even the most basic way.

The difference is that I have science on my side - they only have fairy stories.

I don't know what it takes to get something through your thick skull.

Science has, layer by layer, removed the need for gods to explain the universe. There is now no place for god in the post Big Bang universe. While science cannot, as yet, answer all questions, it has already laid enough of the foundations for us to know that one day it will have all the answers.

There is no room left for a god, all the places for him to hide are gone.

You should stop posting silly comments and face the facts - there is no god.

Was there really any need for the 'flaming', my friend?

I think you are wrong... I think that, even though I am a scientist, AND an Atheist, there is NO logical way to 'disprove' the existence of 'god'. I also think it totally illogical to assert that science can EVER 'answer all questions'... totally illogical, and totally unscientific.

I notice that you have yet to address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

However, even though I think you are failing to grasp the most BASIC premises of science... even though I find your 'arguments' illogical... I have refrained from being rude and insulting.

I know I would appreciate it, if you would pay the same courtesy to your opposition.

Evidence seems to support it. :D

I like how you tied that back to the point we're trying to make. Evidence!

What I should do is have my nephew teach me to smack-talk. There is nothing better than getting him on my team online in Halo 2 and when we win hearing him asking the other players who are swearing and calling people names if they are just being impolite because getting beat down by a seven-year-old is so embarassing. I actually had to replace my XBox the first time he said that because I spewed my drink all over it.

You really can't be THAT stupid - can you?

If understanding the limitations of science that you and ID'ers ignore is stupid, then yes, I'm THAT stupid.

Careful, your stupidity is showing.

Again, since you define stupidity as accepting that science has limitations by intent of the method itself, I'll take that as a compliment and evidence that you've simply run out of rope on this one.

The difference is that I have science on my side - they only have fairy stories.

There is no science that has ever proven that we will ever know everything or that God does not exist. In fact, science has shown that it is VERY unlikely we will ever know everything or that it's possible to know everything and refuses to EVER address the existence of God since there is no emperical evidence to lead scientists to ANY conclusions about God.

You really can't be THAT stupid - can you?


*Flame*

If you have no response, don't respond.


Careful, your stupidity is showing.


*Flame*

I don't know about your 'opponents', Brenchley, but I'm (theoretically) on the same side as you, and EVEN I am getting sick of your flames.

If it continues, I'LL be reporting you to Moderation, even if your 'opponents' don't.


The difference is that I have science on my side - they only have fairy stories.

And yet, you are not sticking to the most fundamental principles of science... the science deals with what can be OBSERVED. Science can NEVER prove or disprove 'god'.... because 'god' is not a verifiable quantity.

Was there really any need for the 'flaming', my friend?

I think you are wrong... I think that, even though I am a scientist, AND an Atheist, there is NO logical way to 'disprove' the existence of 'god'. I also think it totally illogical to assert that science can EVER 'answer all questions'... totally illogical, and totally unscientific.

I notice that you have yet to address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

However, even though I think you are failing to grasp the most BASIC premises of science... even though I find your 'arguments' illogical... I have refrained from being rude and insulting.

I know I would appreciate it, if you would pay the same courtesy to your opposition.

To be fair, I wasn't exactly being complimentary. I'd actually prefer it if he's gonna be snarky that it be wittier. It reminds me of the kid in school that starts out just being a little insulting in an argument and when he finds that he's in over his head he just resorts to "yeah, well, you're a stupid head." Actually, that's pretty much precisely what happened, isn't it?

I don't think it's necessary to make a big thing about it as it evidences the source of his comments, a bitterness that many who are unsure of their FAITH have. I find the most likely culprits of such a lack of reason are people who deep down are fearful they might be wrong.

Was there really any need for the 'flaming', my friend?

What flaming?

I think you are wrong... I think that, even though I am a scientist, AND an Atheist, there is NO logical way to 'disprove' the existence of 'god'. I also think it totally illogical to assert that science can EVER 'answer all questions'... totally illogical, and totally unscientific.

Rubbish. There is nothing illogical about it - in fact it is the logical progression of science. Science answers questions, why do you claim it cannot (in time) answer all questions?

I notice that you have yet to address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

What is there to address about it?

However, even though I think you are failing to grasp the most BASIC premises of science... even though I find your 'arguments' illogical... I have refrained from being rude and insulting.

So have I.

I know I would appreciate it, if you would pay the same courtesy to your opposition.

I do, as you will have noticed?

Rubbish. There is nothing illogical about it - in fact it is the logical progression of science. Science answers questions, why do you claim it cannot (in time) answer all questions?


All questions that have observable evidence

A god being does by deffinition nessisarialy have to have the property of being observable (and theoredicaly has infinate ability to conceal his effects)

In the end it exists beyond the observable

Therefore no it is a question that can not be answered by science

What flaming?



Rubbish. There is nothing illogical about it - in fact it is the logical progression of science. Science answers questions, why do you claim it cannot (in time) answer all questions?



What is there to address about it?



So have I.



I do, as you will have noticed?

Stop it. Stop it. You guys are eroding the inside of my nasal passages. I have to start drinking water I think, cuz this Wild Cherry Pepsi just hurts.

I like how you tied that back to the point we're trying to make. Evidence!


I liked it. :)


What I should do is have my nephew teach me to smack-talk. There is nothing better than getting him on my team online in Halo 2 and when we win hearing him asking the other players who are swearing and calling people names if they are just being impolite because getting beat down by a seven-year-old is so embarassing. I actually had to replace my XBox the first time he said that because I spewed my drink all over it.

My little girl does the same thing with Age of Empires... it seems the (largely male) (mainly) teen population dislikes getting caned by a 7-year-old girl. :)

All questions that have observable evidence

A god being does by deffinition nessisarialy have to have the property of being observable (and theoredicaly has infinate ability to conceal his effects)

In the end it exists beyond the observable

Therefore no it is a question that can not be answered by science

Exactly. More wise words from (the always wise) UpwardThrust.

Thank you, kind sir. :fluffle:

Exactly. More wise words from (the always wise) UpwardThrust.

Thank you, kind sir. :fluffle:
Any time :fluffle:

If understanding the limitations of science that you and ID'ers ignore is stupid, then yes, I'm THAT stupid.

Well one thing is clear, either you don't understand the limitations of science or you don't read the english language very well.

Again, since you define stupidity as accepting that science has limitations by intent of the method itself, I'll take that as a compliment and evidence that you've simply run out of rope on this one.

Science is the tool we have for solving the mysteries of the universe, in fact it has already solved so many it is sometime hard to grasp just how far we have come in the last few centuries. However, there are some kinds of questions where scientific problem solving can fail.

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have answers that can be derived from experiments.

Science can't answer questions about value. There is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these women is prettier?" or "which tastes better - chocolate or strawberry icecream?"

Also, science can't answer questions of morality because morality is a human invention.

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. However, what science can do is to try to convert the supernatural to the natural. Many things that would have been considered supernatural a couple of centuries ago are very much the realm of the natural today.

What science has done is to disprove the biblical concept of god. The god of genesis was blown out of the water years ago and as a result the "faithful" have had to take ever more bizarre steps to find a place for thier god to hide from science.

There is no science that has ever proven that we will ever know everything or that God does not exist. In fact, science has shown that it is VERY unlikely we will ever know everything or that it's possible to know everything and refuses to EVER address the existence of God since there is no emperical evidence to lead scientists to ANY conclusions about God.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. It can be addressed by rereading what I've posted in the past.

*Flame*

Where?

If you have no response, don't respond.



*Flame*

Where?

I don't know about your 'opponents', Brenchley, but I'm (theoretically) on the same side as you, and EVEN I am getting sick of your flames.

What flames?

If it continues, I'LL be reporting you to Moderation, even if your 'opponents' don't.

Again! What flames?

And yet, you are not sticking to the most fundamental principles of science... the science deals with what can be OBSERVED. Science can NEVER prove or disprove 'god'.... because 'god' is not a verifiable quantity.

But science does deal with reality - and as science extends our understanding of that reality is leaves less and less room for a god to hide - that it the point you seem to miss.

What flaming?

Apparently, "Hey, you're stupid!" isn't a flame now?

Rubbish. There is nothing illogical about it - in fact it is the logical progression of science. Science answers questions, why do you claim it cannot (in time) answer all questions?

And then:

Science can't answer questions about value.

science can't answer questions of morality

science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.


Hmmmmm, looks to me like you are also claiming that science can't (in time or not) answer all questions.

So have I.

I do, as you will have noticed?

Yes, calling other people stupid is very polite.

However, what science can do is to try to convert the supernatural to the natural. Many things that would have been considered supernatural a couple of centuries ago are very much the realm of the natural today.


You are mixing definitions of the word supernatural. (Well, it's either that or you have just made two completely contradictory statements when you first said that science can't answer questions regarding the supernatural and then said that it can).

When we (or you) say that science cannot deal with the supernatural, we aren't using the term to mean, "Stuff within the universe that we don't yet understand." If it is within the universe, it can be investigated by science, and is therefore not supernatural. We aren't talking about what people consider to be supernatural - we are speaking of the supernatural as a logical concept - which puts it outside the realm of the universe (and thus outside the realm of science).

You cannot convert the supernatural to natural - if it is natural, it is always natural. If it is supernatural, it is always supernatural - aka - outside or above the laws of the universe.

But science does deal with reality - and as science extends our understanding of that reality is leaves less and less room for a god to hide - that it the point you seem to miss.

Science deals with the universe. If your philosophical viewpoint constricts the word "reality" to "this universe", then you are correct.

However, the point that you don't seem to miss is that we aren't talking about a deity or deities that have any need to "hide".

Where?
Where?
What flames?
Again! What flames?


If you have read the Rules of Conduct, I shouldn't have to point this out to you.


But science does deal with reality - and as science extends our understanding of that reality is leaves less and less room for a god to hide - that it the point you seem to miss.

Again - I bring you back to Heisenberg. No matter how much science CAN be 'sure' of, now, or in the future... there will always be SOME things that science can NOT be sure of.

Heisenberg hands you ONE such thing, for your consideration... and that is FULLY within the rational, 'real' world.

What you fail to realise, apparently, is that science can ONLY deal with what can be objectively observed. But - just because 'god' cannot be verifiably observed, doesn't mean 'god' is not 'real'... just that we cannot observe him/her/it.

Hi guys i dunno wheather anyone has stated this yet but why cant the schools teach both the creationist theory as well as the eveloutionist theory side by side allowing the students to see the merits snd benifits of each theory and allowing the students to make up their own opinions. If these text books do point out genuine concerns and show serious problems with the theory of Evolution they should be allowed to pose their ideas and should be recognised seriously. But at the moment american high school pupils are being fed a one sided, atheistic view of the many sided argument. The creationist argument does show serious problems with evolution and so should be taught as a science as otherwise we are defending a therory- Darwins Evoulotionary theory which has been accepted as flawed so maybe its time to adopt a new theory and not carry on defending the dead. So I say we teach both theories in our High schools, not just the christian but also the Atheistic schools to allow pupils to make up their own ideas and minds and get a balanced viewpoint. Is this so bad?

Hi guys i dunno wheather anyone has stated this yet but why cant the schools teach both the creationist theory as well as the eveloutionist theory side by side allowing the students to see the merits snd benifits of each theory and allowing the students to make up their own opinions.

Because Creationism has no place alongside Evolution in the science class.

If these text books do point out genuine concerns and show serious problems with the theory of Evolution they should be allowed to pose their ideas and should be recognised seriously.

The only thing is, there are no 'serious problems' with the theory. It adapts to new information as it should, and is very well supported by evidence, unlike Creationism.

But at the moment american high school pupils are being fed a one sided, atheistic view of the many sided argument.

One: Separation of Church and State
Two: No, they're learning the scientific theory. You won't get much research done if your explanation for everything is that 'god did it'.

The creationist argument does show serious problems with evolution and so should be taught as a science as otherwise we are defending a therory- Darwins Evoulotionary theory which has been accepted as flawed so maybe its time to adopt a new theory and not carry on defending the dead.

The Creationist argument shows nothing, and has no real science in it. It tries to point out minor gaps in the Evolutionary theory and bring down the entire thing. Darwin's theory has not so much been accepted as flawed as it has been improved upon and incorporated into a better defined whole. With new information, gaps are filled and the theory is refined. Evolution IS the new theory.

So I say we teach both theories in our High schools, not just the christian but also the Atheistic schools to allow pupils to make up their own ideas and minds and get a balanced viewpoint.

No.

Is this so bad?

Yes, read the above explanations for why.

If you have read the Rules of Conduct, I shouldn't have to point this out to you.



Again - I bring you back to Heisenberg. No matter how much science CAN be 'sure' of, now, or in the future... there will always be SOME things that science can NOT be sure of.

You seem to have this fixation with Heisenberg.

Heisenberg hands you ONE such thing, for your consideration... and that is FULLY within the rational, 'real' world.

Heisenberg gets a lot of consideration, he helps to explain a lot.

What you fail to realise, apparently, is that science can ONLY deal with what can be objectively observed. But - just because 'god' cannot be verifiably observed, doesn't mean 'god' is not 'real'... just that we cannot observe him/her/it.

But if, bit by bit, you turn the supernatural into the natural - where is there for him/it/her to hide?

-snip-


But if, bit by bit, you turn the supernatural into the natural - where is there for him/it/her to hide?

How about, outside the universe?

There are other dimensions, after all...

How about in another space-time continuum?

-snip-


But if, bit by bit, you turn the supernatural into the natural - where is there for him/it/her to hide?

How about, outside the universe?

There are other dimensions, after all...

How about in another space-time continuum?

Hi guys i dunno wheather anyone has stated this yet but why cant the schools teach both the creationist theory as well as the eveloutionist theory side by side allowing the students to see the merits snd benifits of each theory and allowing the students to make up their own opinions. If these text books do point out genuine concerns and show serious problems with the theory of Evolution they should be allowed to pose their ideas and should be recognised seriously. But at the moment american high school pupils are being fed a one sided, atheistic view of the many sided argument. The creationist argument does show serious problems with evolution and so should be taught as a science as otherwise we are defending a therory- Darwins Evoulotionary theory which has been accepted as flawed so maybe its time to adopt a new theory and not carry on defending the dead. So I say we teach both theories in our High schools, not just the christian but also the Atheistic schools to allow pupils to make up their own ideas and minds and get a balanced viewpoint. Is this so bad?

See - I was going to reply to this in depth... but then I got to the last few lines, and found out that you are seriously proposing that there are two schools of thought... the Christian and the Atheistic.

How many ways is this flawed?

1) Not all Atheists are scientists.

2) Not all scientists are Atheists.

3) Even if EITHER of the above were not so... there STILL would be no 'Atheistic' Theory... because science doesn't claim lack of belief, or active disbelief, for 'god'. In fact, 'god' just cannot even be accounted for, in science.

4) There is not one unified 'Christian theory', except maybe the Genesis account.

5) Not all Christians accept the Genesis account as literal.

6) Even if ALL Christians DID accept Genesis as a serious, literal explanation... it fails to meet the basic criteria of a 'theory'... that is: it is based on something OTHER than observation.

7) There are thousands of religions out there... not just Christianity. If you want to teach ONE mythological explanation... to make it 'fair'... how can you NOT teach all the others?

You seem to have this fixation with Heisenberg.



Heisenberg gets a lot of consideration, he helps to explain a lot.



But if, bit by bit, you turn the supernatural into the natural - where is there for him/it/her to hide?

Ha! Yes, and it's me with that reading comprehension problem. Let's say science explores every bit of the universe that it can capably explore within the limitations of the scientific method. Now mind you, these are not subjective limitations, they are limitations intentionally designed into the scientific method to keep it dealing with the subjects it is best suited to. You seem to miss this. So when your god, Science, explores every bit of the reality it can explore where can God 'hide'? Everywhere that science can't look. Everywhere not bound by limitations of emperical evidence. Everywhere not bound by the laws of the universe. In other words, God has plenty of room to exist in the potentially infinite expanse that science cannot explore.

More importantly if you read up on the subject you'd know that in every century there is a prominent scientist declares our knowledge complete or nearly so. And in every century a new field or fields of knowledge are discovered which proves that scientist to be a blustering idiot, not too mention the huge advances that continue to be made in every single field. Am I comparing you to that scientist? Nope. Given your demonstrated understanding of science I would have difficulty comparing you to any esteemed scientist.

I've noticed how carefully you've avoided telling us exactly what field of science your expertise is in. Not hard to place why that would be.

As to your other posts, I won't bother. Dem has adequately shown you how your arguments are inconsistent and nonsensical and show a lack of ability to grasp even the most basic tenets of the scientific method like an explicit explanation of its limits. However, keep posting. It just gives us more inconsistencies to use against you.

See - I was going to reply to this in depth... but then I got to the last few lines, and found out that you are seriously proposing that there are two schools of thought... the Christian and the Atheistic.

How many ways is this flawed?

1) Not all Atheists are scientists.

2) Not all scientists are Atheists.

3) Even if EITHER of the above were not so... there STILL would be no 'Atheistic' Theory... because science doesn't claim lack of belief, or active disbelief, for 'god'. In fact, 'god' just cannot even be accounted for, in science.

4) There is not one unified 'Christian theory', except maybe the Genesis account.

5) Not all Christians accept the Genesis account as literal.

6) Even if ALL Christians DID accept Genesis as a serious, literal explanation... it fails to meet the basic criteria of a 'theory'... that is: it is based on something OTHER than observation.

7) There are thousands of religions out there... not just Christianity. If you want to teach ONE mythological explanation... to make it 'fair'... how can you NOT teach all the others?

Absolutely, let's teach about sipapu.

Absolutely, let's teach about sipapu.

Hell, it works for me. Flute-playing Locusts sound like a believable story to me...

You seem to have this fixation with Heisenberg.
Heisenberg gets a lot of consideration, he helps to explain a lot.


On the contrary... it seems you have some kind of 'fear' of Heisenberg... since you never address how the Uncertainty Principle is supposed to 'fit' with your world where science can know everything.


But if, bit by bit, you turn the supernatural into the natural - where is there for him/it/her to hide?

The supernatural never becomes natural.... it is just 'natural' things that we didn't yet understand. And... just perhaps.... some supernatural things that will always remain 'supernatural'. And, the possibility of THOSE things, is outside the scope of science to comment.

Ha! Yes, and it's me with that reading comprehension problem.

Thanks for admitting it :)

Let's say science explores every bit of the universe that it can capably explore within the limitations of the scientific method. Now mind you, these are not subjective limitations, they are limitations intentionally designed into the scientific method to keep it dealing with the subjects it is best suited to. You seem to miss this. So when your god, Science, explores every bit of the reality it can explore where can God 'hide'? Everywhere that science can't look. Everywhere not bound by limitations of emperical evidence. Everywhere not bound by the laws of the universe. In other words, God has plenty of room to exist in the potentially infinite expanse that science cannot explore.

First, you do not need to explore the whole universe to understand it. Second, there is nowhere where the laws of universe do not apply. Third, there is not infinate expance that science cannot explore - except maybe the infinate empty space within the heads if IDers.

So yes, science has bounds, but not the sort you seem to think it has. Certainly science has already excluded god from most of his old domains. We know he is not involved in the creation of the universe, its evolution or the evolution of life on earth. Religions have already been forced to make major changes in their creed because science has exposed their fairy stories.

More importantly if you read up on the subject you'd know that in every century there is a prominent scientist declares our knowledge complete or nearly so. And in every century a new field or fields of knowledge are discovered which proves that scientist to be a blustering idiot, not too mention the huge advances that continue to be made in every single field.

Are you claiming that will go on for ever?

Am I comparing you to that scientist? Nope. Given your demonstrated understanding of science I would have difficulty comparing you to any esteemed scientist.

I've noticed how carefully you've avoided telling us exactly what field of science your expertise is in. Not hard to place why that would be.

Wrong. I've stated it several times. My field of expertize lies in Physics, with particular expertize in cosmology. Apart from lecturing in the past (Cosmology, Astronomy, Human evolution and Manned spaceflight) I've done a lot of editing/proofing of both books and magazine articles on science subjects - making sure things do make sense to the reader.

As to your other posts, I won't bother. Dem has adequately shown you how your arguments are inconsistent and nonsensical and show a lack of ability to grasp even the most basic tenets of the scientific method like an explicit explanation of its limits.

Lets get things straight, I get paid to understand science. It is not, nor has it ever been my full time job though at times it has taken up a large proportion of my time. I understand fully how science works, I attend seminars and symposiums several times a year - I have to if I have the job of editing the transcripts for publication. As part of that I do spend a reasonable amount of time with groups of scientist and in one-to-one sessions. Do I understand science - you can bet your bottom dollar I do.

However, keep posting. It just gives us more inconsistencies to use against you.

Only in your dreams.