God Is Not...Well, He's Just Not

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

Susan,

Do you realize how elitist you always make yourself seem? And who the heck did you keep sticking your tongue at during the Colbert interview? Maybe you hate religion so much because you are scared by the fact that a greater being made you, and you are accordingly accountable to him. By the way, I have read through Genesis multiple times, both in NIV and KJV. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are the four gospels, followed by the book about the early church, Acts, and the epistles of Paul, I + II Corinthians, etc. DNA is the corkscrew code of our being. I think it is telling that you judge America's intelligence on what they know of the Bible, when the Bible is intentionally ignored in public schools, in favor of Atheist rhetoric.

oh yeah, one more thing Do you understand what this means? anyway thanks for the post.

http://buy-viagera.allsexchat.info/viagera/site_map.html >viagera womens

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... Now, here's the next step: Great job!http://vaigra.infinites.net/vaigra/index.html >vaigra cheap usa

pPUtgB U cool ))

pPUtgB U cool ))

pPUtgB U cool ))

A good way eh? Here is why:
http://a-cash.info/vigra/vigra-discount-buy-online.html >vigra discount buy online Great job!

I read some of the posts and I think it is a great site. I'll bet
you can guess what happened next. http://maraments.hostinplace.com/zelnorm/zelnorm-medication.html >zelnorm medication I have to agree. Good article.

As you probably know . . . Thanks a lot!
http://vigra.idoo.com/cialles/ >cialles cheap online

Here are some examples... More about that later. http://viagara.biblehound.info/vaigra/vaigra-usa.html > vaigra usa

Sounds intersting.. I’m really interested to follow some articles. thanks for posting this. http://buyvigra.biblehound.info/viagera/index.html >viagera buy online

Heh. Nice. But I must let you in on a secret... I have to agree. Good article. http://buy-vigra.allsexchat.info/viagara/site_map
.html >viagara womens

Eh.. I just don't have much to say lately. So it goes. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I guess it doesn't bother me. More about that later.


buy vaigra in Canada

For instance

http://viagra.casinoplaydirect.info/cialles/site_map.html >cialles
cheap online vigra


viagara

However, wait until you see http://tramedol.150m.com/viagera/site_map.html ">alternative viagera
http://tramedol.150m.com/viaggra/index.html ">generic viaggra

But what if you could... http://loan.casinoplaydirect.info/student-loan-consolidation/site_map.html ">advice consolidation loan student student

Can this be true? http://nowhow.150m.com/vaigra/index.html ">order vaigra

Basically nothing seems worth doing, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I just don't have anything to say right now, but oh well.
adult friend finder

Hello all. i need
http://presskot.isuisse.com/refiance/site_map.html ">payday loans over 1500- fast

Hi!не могу понять
http://a-cash.info/caronline/agent-broker-carrier-insuranceonline ">.agent broker carrier insurance

Misquotations

Dead cat bounce

Sloane Ranger

Below the salt

Point to point

Neither here nor there

Neither here nor there

Zig-zag

A drop in the bucket

Namby-pamby

Your money or your life

Your money or your life

Beck and call

Make a virtue of necessity

http://besting.itrello.com >aaa insurance traveler End of story

http://besting.itrello.com >aaa insurance traveler End of story

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >cash instant loan till Tinker's dam

we now you are just satan using his develish words to trap us in sin. you can laugh all you like at religios beleivers but we have the true word and God will punish you for your blasfeming.

Jesus died even for retards like you and their are now words to discribe how you are hated by good decent Christians.

Were are your morales? we just dont want to live in your communist sewer as slaves of chinese mafia.

We are taught to forgive but God has a special place for all atheists; it is called Hell. The devil will use red hot pokers to gouge out the eyeballs of atheists and make them drink hot lead and razor blads.

it is all you deserve, their is now were in this world you can hide from the eyes of God.

Just so the poor atheist Gerry can't say vinny didn't answer, here is Vinny's answer to who made God:

THE SECOND TIME NOW.

PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, WITH READING GLASSES JERRY.

ARE YOU READY?

HERE IT COMES....

1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause. This an understood and accepted principle in human civilizations throughout the earth. If it had a beginning, then somebody or something made it. Quite simple. The computers each of us are using at this moment had to be made by somebody. Mine was made by Apple, for example. But if there were no name mentioned at all, we still know that somebody had to make it. Design begets a designer. FACT OF LIFE!

2- The Universe, including our earth (and all life upon the earth) had a beginning. Most scientists believe in the 'Big Bang" theory. While omitting God altogether, the common belief is that it did have a definite beginning and is still developing and expanding.

3- Therefore, the Universe, that had a beginning, must also have a Cause. That Cause, in my opinion is God, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has tremendous experimental support, standing the test of time many decades later, states that "time" is linked to matter and space. The way that man keeps track of time, for example is based on the physical universe. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years are all related to the earth's rotation around the sun. Time itself then, it is believed, would have begun along with matter and space with the beginning of the universe. Hence, *If* an Intelligent Designer Created the universe, he would also be the creator of time? Being the Creator of time, he would NOT be limited to the time "dimension" that HE himself created.

He is thus outside of time. He would not be limited by time or space (dimensions again both of which he created) and thus once again, not requiring a cause for his very own existence. . Because all of us personally live in the dimension of time, it can be impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning or an end. He, simply put, ALWAYS EXISTED.

No human beings were there in the beginning of the universe to witness what exactly happened. Brilliant minds today can only guess and try to formulate theories. The bible says pointedly: "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". There is sound and reasonable reasons to believe, as many (including some of the most intellectual minds ever born) in Creation. That all life as we know it today was deigned by the only one who is not subject to time, the only one that never had a beginning.

The ONLY ONE that is not confined by space and bound by physical laws. Laws in which he created and therefore would not be subject to. None of which here is a stretch to either grasp, believe or understand. It makes sense to me. It is believable, logical and reasonable.

Some like to complain, "well you cannot prove this, so you really cannot say with any certainty that you believe this".

And for those that do feel this way, I disagree.

There is EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today.

Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed.

Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively. Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

After an examination of much evidence, I am 100 percent certain that these things surrounding us are the result of a Superior Designer. In my mind and in my sincere opinion God DOES exist.

And He is responsible for my being here right now. I owe him the gratitude he so deserves. I thank him for letting me live and exist. Sure I am also here because my mother and father married, had intimate relations and I was born. But that PROCESS in itself is so complex, such an outstanding system of design that, for me, the credit rightfully goes to the Creator himself.

This is why HE deserves the credit; my parents had me because a masterful designer created this process called REPRODUCTION. In fact there was very little on their part, to be truthful. He is worthy of worship in my mind. My questions as to how life arose are answered.

Now atheists, Please tell those following this thread just how these very complicated systems in the universe and the earth, along with all life forms upon the earth ORIGINATED. Just how did they START? If Science cannot create life, from non-living matter, in a controlled, scientific environment, nor give life BACK to a dead person or animal (though having all the parts needed right in front of them), then how could all these very things come to exist without ANY intellectual force behind them at all? Just FELL into place?

BWAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH

It has never been done ANYWHERE. Yet you want to just chalk up all these complex, massive, amazing features surrounding us today, up to just blind series of chances?

Sure, there is a red corvette just sitting in North Dakota somewhere too..

Sorry. But I am Not buying what you are selling ATHEISTS.

YOU ARE DEAD IN WATER ATHEISTS.

ONCE AGAIN.

NOTHING NEW.

****** THERE, MEMORY REFRESHED GERRY?

GOOD!

Spanktime for Jerry!

Gerry says: Hi, kindergarten Vinny with the red Chevy, you deftly avoided the question who caused the cause, while screaming about the necessity of causes.

***** Poor Gerry, must have forgot to find his READING GLASSES. Because the question was answered in detail.

And sorry gerry, but there was no screaming here. Plenty of laughing though.

You know why there is plenty nof laughing, Gerry?

Because atheist teachings that all things arose from nothing by nobody into complex and amazing things IS LAUGHABLE AND BORING NONSENSE.

Poor Gerry, calls Vinny a kindergardner, but Gerry has no answers to vinny the kindergardner's many arguments that are plastered all over this thread.

: ))

Gerry says:..."I am a VERY happy atheist, laughing mao about stomping children like you."

**** The only thing stomped on this thread were those sorry, lame atheist teachings. Ducky was buried so deep he could not be found with shovels and bull dozers.

Mr Mark did the three step need to play with my kids out the door shuffle the first chance he had.

Suzie Jacoby was a NO-SHOW ON HER OWN THREAD.

And Gerry has no content posted ANYWHERE ON THIS THREAD.

Gerry, you are just blowing smoke like all the other atheists here that skipped town.

That would be because they have no explanations as to just how complex things arise from nothing BY NOBODY.

And we all know why.

Because all things from nothing are embarrassments that always bury the poor little atheists.

Sorry Gerry, but you are one very lame debater here.

Saying that you are a happy atheist, with no content at all, just does not cut it here.

Which is why every now and then I show back up just to give the little atheists a large dose of reality.

And then the same thing happens every single time.

And just what is that Gerry, that happens every single time?

When the going gets tough, the atheists run and HIDE...

Poor little atheists.

Folks you just gotta love the poor little atheists like Gerry with no content and no answers to any questions.

This has just been too easy.

The ride has been fun though.

Guess I will have to find other threads to play "lets bury the atheists".

And watch how fast they GET OUT OF DODGE ONCE VINNY SHOWS UP.

Folks, you just gotta love the poor little atheists.

Hi, kindergarten Vinny with the red Chevy,

you deftly avoided the question who caused the cause, while screaming about the necessity of causes. Ridiculous. God, the sorry proxy for your ignorance. Stomped your foot, screamed and shouted insults. Exactly what you would expect from a small, superstitious boy.

I am a VERY happy atheist, laughing mao about stomping children like you.

You should read a book once in a while. Dennett is too difficult for you, though.

I see this thread is still kicking... though barely....

Gerry the sorry, desperate atheist says:.Can something come from nothing? No? Is god nothing? No? If nothing can come from nothing, there are two options?

1. Somebody made god. But who made "somebody"? Who made the "somebody"-maker?

2. God is nothing. He doesn't exist outside our imagination, as a proxy for our (your) ignorance.

I doubt, though, that you can follow this argument...

**** This is such an old, sophomoric argument from the little atheists.

First of all, it is my personal belief that:

1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause. This an understood and accepted principle in human civilizations throughout the earth. If it had a beginning, then somebody or something made it. Fairly simple. The computers each of us are using at this moment had to be made by somebody. Mine was made by Apple, for example. But if there were no name mentioned at all, we still know that somebody had to make it. Design begets a designer.

2- The Universe, including our earth (and all life upon the earth) had a beginning. Most scientists believe in the 'Big Bang" theory. While omitting God altogether, the common belief is that it did have a definite beginning and is still developing and expanding.

3- Therefore, the Universe, that had a beginning, must also have a Cause. That Cause, in my opinion is God.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has tremendous experimental support, standing the test of time many decades later, states that "time" is linked to matter and space. The way that man keeps track of time, for example is based on the physical universe. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years are all related to the earth's rotation around the sun. Time itself then, it is believed, would have begun along with matter and space with the beginning of the universe. Hence, *If* an Intelligent Designer Created the universe, he would also be the creator of time? Being the Creator of time, he would NOT be limited to the time "dimension" that HE himself created.

He is thus outside of time. He would not be limited by time or space (dimensions again both of which he created) and thus once again, not requiring a cause for his very own existence. . Because all of us personally live in the dimension of time, it can be impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning or an end. He, simply put, always existed.

No human beings were there in the beginning of the universe to witness what exactly happened. Brilliant minds today can only guess and try to formulate theories. The bible says pointedly: "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". There is sound and reasonable reasons to believe, as many (including some of the most intellectual minds ever born) in Creation. That all life as we know it today was deigned by the only one who is not subject to time, the only one that never had a beginning.

The only one that is not confined by space and bound by physical laws. Laws in which he created and therefore would not be subject to. None of which here is a stretch to either grasp, believe or understand. It makes sense to me. It is believable, logical and reasonable.

Some like to suggest, "well you cannot prove this, so you really cannot say with any certainty that you believe this". And for those that do feel this way, I disagree.

There is EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today.

Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed.

Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively. Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

After an examination of much evidence, I am 100 percent certain that these things surrounding us are the result of a Superior Designer. In my mind and in my sincere opinion God DOES exist.

And He is responsible for my being here right now. I owe him the gratitude he so deserves. I thank him for letting me live and exist. Sure I am also here because my mother and father married, had intimate relations and I was born. But that PROCESS in itself is so complex, such an outstanding system of design that, for me, the credit rightfully goes to the Creator himself.

This is why HE deserves the credit; my parents had me because a masterful designer created this process called REPRODUCTION. In fact there was very little on their part, to be truthful. He is worthy of worship in my mind. My questions as to how life arose are answered.

Now atheists, Please tell those following this thread just how these very complicated systems in the universe and the earth, along with all life forms upon the earth ORIGINATED. Just how did they START? If Science cannot create life, from non-living matter, in a controlled, scientific environment, nor give life BACK to a dead person or animal (though having all the parts needed right in front of them), then how could all these very things come to exist without ANY intellectual force behind them at all? Just FELL into place?

BWAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH

It has never been done ANYWHERE. Yet you want to just chalk up all these complex, massive, amazing features surrounding us today, up to just blind series of chances?

Sure, there is a red corvette just sitting in North Dakota somewhere too..

Sorry. But I am Not buying what you are selling ATHEISTS.

YOU ARE DEAD IN WATER ATHEISTS.

ONCE AGAIN.

NOTHING NEW.

Vinny, it looks like ye musta missed the post last week that was especially for your benefit and wherein you were informed that intelligent men, (not to say fly men) have, oh for years 'n years, been doing that very thing on a daily basis with millions participating, which is tae say, turnin' inanimate matter (a wee bit starch and supermarket wine) intae yer actual livin' flesh 'n blood and all for you tae indulge in a wee bit cannabilism.
If ye have the slightest doubt on this kinda sorcery, even got a name, transubstantiation, then you arnae a proper Christian accordin' tae the highest authority on earth, none other than Pope Benny!
Now what have ye got tae say tae that eh?

Can something come from nothing? No?

Is god nothing? No?

If nothing can come from nothing, there are two options?

1. Somebody made god. But who made "somebody"? Who made the "somebody"-maker?

2. God is nothing. He doesn't exist outside our imagination, as a proxy for our (your) ignorance.

I doubt, though, that you can follow this argument...

Why do I even bother coming back to read this lame thread ??

MRS E.LANGLY says: ..."Maria is Vinnie.Vinnie is Richmond Stalgis, plus dozens of other names,like The Moderate.
He comments on his own comments as he fights for the Lord. The Lord of his imagination.
Poor guy thinks he's getting Brownie points for spreading the word of God,when actually he makes even Christians wince.
Vinny whatever your name is,you give religion a bad name. People will think we are all like you.
Please stop.Read some real books.You are totally ridiculous and a disgrace to your religion.
Your behavior on these threads is deceitful and dishonest;not exactly the behavior God would approve of."

******* You are only lost and clueless with zero contribution.

Why are you even here?

No arguments, no content, just whining about Vinny.

I am none of these people you accuse me of being. Just more laughable (((paranoia))) here once again...

Where did Vinny say he fights for the Lord? Where did Vinny say anything about organized religion aside from my first post where I said, "forget organized religion for this argument, that's fine with me". This thread is about sorry atheist beliefs, and that is what I posted about, sorry atheist beliefs.

You are completely confused and lost and have no idea what you are even doing here.

E FAVORITE whines: "Vinnie - I'm so glad to see you here, but so disappointed you didn't mention me in that stellar line up of atheist posters whom you made look so foolish.
I was hoping you'd answer my questions. Here's my post again, in case you just accidently skipped over it:

**** Folks, e-fav keeps following vinny around like a dog wanting a bone. Does E-Fav have any kind of answers to my many questions already posted above? Nope. ZERO ANSWERS FROM E BOY.

Does E-Fav have any contributions defending his laughable atheist beliefs? Nope. ZERO ANSWERS FROM E-BOY!

So lets see what E-Fav keeps following and whining to vinny about.

"Hey Vinnie- let’s say you’re right about God being the original super-intelligent designer. Why do you suppose he waited so long to allow humans to harness electricity and develop antibiotics? And why hasn’t he updated the one set of instructions he gave us over 2,000 years ago?"

***** You see folks, with sorry atheists like this, there is no hope for atheism.

E-Fav wants to know why God waited so long for electricity and to make antibiotics?? What does any of this have to do with sorry atheist beliefs? What does any of this have to do with explaining how complex things arise from nothing, all on their own?

In case you have not noticed E-Fav, I am not God. It is humorous that you appear to think I can go right up and ask Him.

Should I call God or e-mail your boring question? What you think? Should I make an appointment to see him in person to ask your poor excuse of a question?

The fact is, that God has allowed mankind to do many things on his very OWN.

God has allowed intelligent men to make many kinds of advancements on his very OWN.

Are there antibiotics today? Yep. Is there electricity? Yep. Can man go to the moon? Yep. Map the human genome? Yep. Harness atomic energy? Yep. Computer chips? Yep.

There are many things intelligent men can do today. The Creator has simply ALLOWED intelligent men to govern themselves for now.

And though intelligent men can do all these impressive things, they still CANNOT MAKE LIFE FROM DEAD MATTER.

Which is why believing all amazing things from nothing at all, by nobody at all is foolish embarassing laughable atheist teachings.

Thems the facts folks!

Aye Bernie,

Ye have yer way with words me lad. Ye make much good sense, and with a fine style at that.

Here is the situation as I see it. Israel is sitting on a nice pile of nukes, 150 to 200 or so. Pakistan has god knows how many, as ye say, and is about to go to a theocratic Islamic government, with bin Laden and the Taliban whispering in their ear. North Korea is helping Iran and Syria to get nukes. The Saudis have Chinese ballistic missile technology, and who knows if they have nukes. So we are headed for a sure fire nuclear holocaust, and the only question is how much time do we have.

They are not so much a threat to us, but Israel is toast. We have to pull them out of their illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine at the point of a gun and evacuate them to Texas. It’s payback time for Texas for giving us our Dear Leader. We must declare a no fly zone over the entire region and shoot down anything that moves. If the Israelis don’t cooperate, and for sure they won’t, we will destroy every plane, ship and tank that we have foolishly invested a fortune in helping them acquire.

It ain’t pretty, but it’s time to admit what a disastrous mistake we’ve made, and make amends.

We also must stop talking about banning all nuclear weapons and get the job done, totally, every single warhead on god’s green earth, including ours.

Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate that has a clue, and I like his plan to achieve energy independence within the next decade. Hilary will be the next president of course, but hopefully she will catch on and steal his idea.

Being such a bright young lad, I’m certain ye will agree and give yer full support to the plan that I have outlined here

My goodness Rick, I never thought for a minit anybody would hammer me again in the way auld Uncle Fergus did and I do regret now giving you the means to frizzle me to burnt toast as of yore!

All the same, what d’ye mean, wee countries such as Iran and Iraq, when the mad mullahs will soon be sweeping away Mushariff in Pakistan where they’ll have plenty nuclear bombs to play with!

You might believe the Iranian government, once it has nuclear weapons of its own, will act rationally, but that wee Mamoud Amadinnerjacket’s jihad cries against Israel contradicts such beliefs. And bear in mind there is a Koranic injunction that bars any reconciliation with Jewish folk.

It is undeniable that Islam is a totalitarian, fascist, ideology based on an imagined expectation of inevitable victory over all non-Islamic alternatives. This is what drives the mullah-induced, brain-washed, suicide bombers. Nuclear destruction of Israel would be an extension of that same strategy even if it brought annihilation to parts of the Islamic world.
Just one wee boat, a tug fr’instance, parked in the waters off New York or London with a crude, dirty Hbomb aboard set to go off if us infidels don’t get down on our knees with head on floor and arses in the air, five times a day at that, then the button will be pressed and off we go!

Twice blest is he who knows his cause is just
But thrice blest is he who gets his knock in fust!

We're straying off topic a bit. Let's see if this post from another thread can bring us back on.

Daniel makes a good point.

We are straying off topic, but not entirely. We are discussing religious beliefs after all. And religion is often co-opted by politicians for their own greedy, nefarious ends. After all, didn’t our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House march us into Iraq as instructed by God?

Hello Daniel,

I always enjoy your posts on these threads. You are a Christian, but are thoughtful, and recognize the foolishness of trying to convince others to acquire your beliefs.

Now, in response to my following question to Susan on another thread: ‘I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that God exists?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline, from negative infinity to the present time, is greater than the likelihood that God exists?’

You respond that such questions are inherently absurd, because if I understand you correctly, this information is forever locked away from humans, just as is similar information about the nature of God.

You may be right. I certainly never expect to have the answer to these questions in my life time, and perhaps no human will ever acquire this information. But we know that there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being to seek answers to these questions: who are we, where did we come from, what are we doing here, etc.

It is no wonder that Susan did not respond. How could she? All we can say as atheists/agnostics is that I don’t know; but based on the evidence available to me, I don’t believe that God exists.

Just as you, I believe, have decided that you don’t know either, but you have always lived in a Christian family, and see no reason to change your beliefs.

I really don’t believe that we are that far apart.

You seem to have some ideas about atheists/agnostics attributing our, and the universe’s, existence to chance, that I don’t believe are correct. We believe that we and the universe are evolving according to laws of natural selection and other physical laws of nature; e.g. gravity, momentum, etc., that are understandable to a certain degree.

You look deeper and conclude that we do not truly understand the underlying cause of these laws; e.g. ‘force at a distance’ (gravity and electromagnetism) and never will. This knowledge is forever locked away from us. I am not ready to accept this. You, being a physicist, know that our greatest minds (astrophysicists and others) are striving mightily to answer these questions and are making progress with new theories such as String Theory and M-Theory. We will see what they find out, unfortunately probably not in our life time.

And also, since it is my expectation that this is the only life we will ever have (no afterlife and no reincarnation), I will probably never know the answer to these wonders. But as Susan says on another thread, I will just have to make the most of the knowledge that I can acquire and things that I can experience during this ever so brief lifetime.

It’s not all that bad a life is it?

Bernie Bee,

Shame be upon ye! Yer dear Uncle Fergus would tell ye “If ye send a turnip round every country in the world ten times it will still come back a turnip. Well-travelled, aye—but as thick and unenlightened as ever!”

Now which of these wee Muslim countries are ye so afraid of that might conquer the world and convert it to Islam? Iran? Iraq?

Nonsense! That’s just a bogus scare tactic propagated by the Neocons to justify their lust for Muslim land and oil fields.

There are worse, a lot worse, motivations than greed for oil for attacking other countries and people. How about subjecting the whole world to sharia law for the greater glory o' Allah fr'instance!

Bernie Bee,

That’s right; the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that accelerated the illegal and immoral immigration of the Zionist Jews into Palestine was the most dreadful decision of the last century.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The UN partition of 1947 that enabled the establishment of the ‘State of Israel’ was the next disastrous decision. Truman new better but caved in to pressure in an election year to public opinion and the political attacks from the Republican candidate Dewey. So much for: “The buck stops here”.

These dreadful decisions are only rivaled by the disastrous decision of this century to invade and occupy Iraq. All for our unquenchable thirst for Middle East oil, and the Neocon Israeli lobby pulling the strings of our government.

Can you imagine how much better off would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on these dastardly deeds, on our infrastructure and alternative energy sources instead?

Grammar: For 'done' in above post read, 'shown'

Get away with you Rick! It is the stated aim of the brutal and barbarous Islamic hordes to wipe Israel from the map. Are you saying the world would be a better place in that event?
The view from here is that Israel is the outpost of the Civilised world and should unstintedly be given all the help that's needed.

If it was the Muslim world that had the power of America do you think there would be more or less consideration of using that power than America has done so far?

"YOU LOVE LIFE-WE LOVE DEATH"

Should it indeed come to it then give em what they love sez I!

Islamaphobes,

Here is a good article that highlights what should be the focus of the Islamaphobes: the Israeli Lobby that is pushing us over the edge of the abyss. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

‘In my analysis, which is shared, for example, by Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian, the answer is that it's mainly the Zionist tail that wags the American dog. As I demonstrate in my epic, two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews, it is a fact that, with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson, every American President, including the idiot in the White House at present, tried to draw red lines that Israel should not cross; and on most occasions Israel put two fingers up and crossed them. There is no mystery about why the Zionist lobby (AIPAC plus) has such power. What passes for democracy in America is for sale to the highest bidder, and one of the highest bidders, and certainly the best organized and the most effective, is the Zionist lobby, now in association with Christian evangelical fundamentalism and parts if not all of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby has three main weapons of influence:

- money, apparently unlimited, to fund election campaigns (candidates who offend Zionism can be and are destroyed - outspent);

- the organized Jewish vote in close election races (in half a dozen critical constituencies); and

- the use of the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust as a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate. (On this front the Zionist lobby is assisted by the fact that, out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media in America and throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world is complicit in Zionism's suppression of the truth of history. What, really, does the media fear? Punishment by the withdrawal of advertising revenue).’

David and many others,
IN ANSWER TO PROOF OF GOD, muslims point of view!!
I haven't read all the posts but David in reply of your post to me dated:10/02/07.

I understand your point of few David when you refer to spirit. I suggest you to further study the meaning and concept.

To all fella's no offense and with all due respect, in Bible word trinity is not even mentioned. Even name Bible is not mentioned inside book. In Roman latin language Bible means book. The closest explaination saying that Holly Ghost, Spirit and Father is one is taken out/removed from the Bible in its latest versions/new additions explained by more than 50 High Preists of Church that it was not mentioned in the most ancient scripts and was a concoction, addition, fabrication in the translations.

More than 50% of the Bible is written by Paul who heardly met once to Jesus in his life time. Then written by Luke, Methew and John. And very small part of it is said by Jesus(A.S.) him self. (You can refer to red Bible).
Where Qur'an is the word only that Mohammud(P.B.U.H.)heard and not every thing he said.(refer to my previous mail Jesus in Islam).
- What Mohammud(PBUH)said other than what he hear is called HADITH. and is not part of Quran(muslim Bible). And we also found concoctions in hadith but thousands are preserved and orignal.
-And what deciples of Mohammud(PBUH) said is not even considered as religious scripture or part of it unlike Cristian Bible. It is kept totally separate for other references.
And to see the Proof of God, please read my next post!

Doomed to failure... .. .

Daniel says:

'So, there may be no God, but even more, there may be no natural law.'

Congratulations Daniel. Welcome aboard the atheist/agnostic team.

* *** ** * DOOMED * ** *** *

I made the comment a couple of times, questioning the laws of physics and the laws of nature, and Gerry gave a sort of dismissive reply.

I did not invent these ideas. These philosophical ideas are presented in high level physics classes for the students who seek further understanding behind the curious principles of quantum and relativistic physics. These ideas are not presented as science, but as philosophical ways of dealing with, what appear to be, physical paradoxes.

In fact, the laws of nature have very little to do with nature. They are, rather, the rules that govern imaginary models chosen to simulate certain specific aspects of the physical world. They have, ultimately, no meaning outside of our heads. Even so, the 18th century phylosophy of natural law, derived from the emergence of science, is something that many relgious people believe in and most atheists believe. But this basis for their conception for reality, is in fact, not real at all, but imaginary.

So, there may be no God, but even more, there may be no natural law. Certinly belief in natural law is the basis for the emergence of the doctrines of "intelligent design" and a God who is the "intelligent designer." But if you do not believe in natural law, then that avenue for the proof of God is sealed off.

Belief in God must come from some other way of thinking and from some other source.

If you have a hard time accepting the unreality of something that seems so real, try this: what about the continents of the world? Are they real? They seem very real, do they not? But they are not real. They have no existence outside of our own minds, for the definition of a continent is that part of the world not covered in water, and the boundary of a continent is where the water meets the dry land. On one side, water; one the other side, dry land. What we think of as fixed and real things may be radiaclly altered if the Greenland glaciers melt and raise the level of the sea, and re-draw the continents.

Think of this: is Wednesday real? Is Friday real? Is Sunday real? They sure seem real, but they are not real at all, but just our accounting markers, existing only in our minds.

These are some simple examples, of a much more complex thought.

To Susan Jacoby, please, won't you put a block on this thread, before one of us posts again?

*** ** * ALL DOOMED * ** ***

Thanks Chip for the helping to scare off the demons.

It’s amazing what you can learn on this site.

Anthropomorphism: The attributing of human characteristics and purposes to inanimate objects, animals, plants, or other natural phenomena, or to God. To describe a rushing river as “angry” is to anthropomorphize it.

Rick, agreed, but it's truly not something I worry about or ever expect to know the answer to. I feel that the idea of a creator is simply anthropomorphism and without any evidence to lend it merit it's at the bottom of my list of possibilities. That would change if such evidence ever did emerge. It's also entirely possible that our idea of eternity and infinity are limitations of our human brains which didn't evolve to easily handle such things (theoretical physicists excluded), and there are possibilities we simply can't conceptualize at all.

Chip,

Yep, but positing the M-Theory just moves the goal posts back a little further. Now where did the loaf of bread come from with the slices that represent the membranes? We are still stuck with either: (1) the eternal universe without a beginning that Alan Guth finds unsatisfactory, because ‘a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation’ and (2) the universe that magically sprang from nothing.

Rick, glad to hear that you enjoyed "The Elegant Universe." I think it does an excellent job of presenting the current (when it was produced) state of theoretical physics in a way that non-scientists can understand, and manages to be thoroughly entertaining at the same time.

The bleeding edge of science fills me with far more awe and wonder than all the holy books ever written. I also don't particularly care for the idea of the universe spontaneously being created from nothing, which is why I find Membrane theory so fascinating because it posits a cause of the big bang. I'm in no way qualified to judge scientific theories for their plausibility or merit, but they're fascinating to contemplate, and far more intellectually satisfying than simply saying "god did it" and calling it a day. If by some chance there actually is a creator god, and it created the universe simply to fill it full of people so that they could fear and worship and grovel before it, such a being doesn't need me. It's needs a smack upside the head and a good therapist.

* ** *** WE ALL BE DOOMED *** ** *

Caesar,

You are in a mood most foul today. Take the rest of the day off, get a good night's sleep, and report back for duty bright and early tomorrow AM.

It be certain this chapter of human development be brought to an abrupt end.For foul play,it be ref holding up the red card,this case it be all humanity in disgrace,being sent off the planet. It should be understood (human beings) have an spiritual account,which remains open till all fulfill spiritual development,such its ultimate being in *spiritual enlightenment*.With climate change, message to loved one's,it not the end of story,but end of a chapter,in human development.(next chapter we being much the wiser)...

Don't worry Caesar! We are not going to commit Harry Carry just because we don't believe in god.

I agree; it is scary though. We have to stop invading and occupying Muslim holy land, just because of our unquenchable thirst for oil. And we must get the Neocon Israeli lobby’s hands off the strings controlling our government, and find a just solution to the Palestinian crisis. I vote for bringing the 6 million Israeli Jews to Texas. At least Texas is ours to give. Palestine most definitely was not.

Wake up people! We must get independent of Middle East oil. Think what the trillion dollars squandered on the occupations of Palestine and Iraq could have done for our economy and national security if invested in our infrastructure and alternative energy development.

PS, here’s a piece of trivia: It’s not Harry Carry; it’s Hara-kiri, Seppuku, (Sape-puu-kuu) the Japanese formal language term for ritual suicide (Hara-kiri (Har-rah-kee-ree) is the common language term.), was an intregal aspect of feudal Japan (1192-1868). It developed as an intregal part of the code of bushido and the discipline of the samurai warrior class.

Humanity in partnership with God being solution. Without God,humanity be as Romeo missing Juliet. Both in total dependence on other for existance. The problem being with no strong spiritual code that all agree on,we have acts committed that of appalling brutality,as destruction.Must be an balance struck betwixt all nations all people's founded on spiritual understanding, experience. A contract drawn which all people's can refer. Such of course requiring more depth in spiritual development.The present situation for humanity dire,we reach appalling heights of injustice, acts of barbaric horror destruction committed. Situation now such that God having little choice but bring present chapter in human development to an end.Humanity being an car without brakes, hurtling but headlong into a brick wall.The Lack of brakes as be lack in spiritual development,it vital balance struck betwixt spiritual material.

From another thread:

Kavon,

Thanks for your delightful and thoughtful post. I must gently disagree with only a couple of your comments:

1. You say: ‘God? proof of God is reading this text right now...
you already know, but you can deny it to yourself....’

I must respectfully disagree. There are only two possibilities: (1) god exists, and (2) it does not. I place this probability at 50/50, and believe me I do know my own mind. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. There is absolutely zero evidence to support either contention.

It is obviously comforting to humans to believe that god does exist, as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of us (80-90 percent?) do believe this, or claim to. I have had supposedly devout believers tell me that you may as well believe in god. It costs nothing to do that. However, if you do not believe in god, you may (however unlikely) roast in hell, the river of fire. This hardly sounds like true belief to me.

I am glad at least that you are a Muslim who has given up faith in the hateful god of the OT/NT and Qur’an who wants to cast all nonbelievers who search for truth into hell, or the river of fire.

2. You say: ‘Great? how about dont bother wasting your time trying to understand it completely now and focus your efforts on improving humanity.’

Of course we should focus our efforts on improving humanity, but don’t ask us to give up our search for truth about the universe that we live in. This is futile, for there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being, to strive mightily to discover who we are and what we are doing here.

Sorry, that last post was mine.

Chip,

Thanks for the great link to Eternal Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

As you said, it is a great show. In Chapter 6 of 8 in hour 3 of 3, the eggheads get into discussing the Big Bang and origin of the universe. Their discussion parallels ours remarkably well.

David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara, notes that as we run the Big Bang backwards, we reach a point near time zero where the laws of physics completely break down.

Alan Guth says that ‘the classic Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang’.

Ed Witten says that ‘most people come at this with the naïve notion that there was a beginning; that the universe emerged into somethingness from nothingness’.

Ed Ovrut, University of Pennsylvania, says ‘I don’t like nothing; do I really believe that the universe emerged from nothing? I’m not a philosopher, but I imagine that to a philosopher, that would be a problem. To a physicist, that also is a problem’.

Alan Guth says ‘I actually find it rather unattractive to think of a universe without a beginning. I find that a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation’.

So we are in good company. No one has a clue how we got here.

However, one thing that we can be absolutely sure of, and take comfort from, is the fact that Maria’s hateful god of the OT and the Qur’an (sorry Victoria and Moody), that wants all of us nonbelievers who are honestly searching for truth, to roast in everlasting hell, the river of fire, does not exist. The likelihood of existence for this god is obviously vanishingly small.

Bernie Bee and Caesar,

Ye are most wise. More power te ye.

BERNIE BEE.....The combined forces of Dragon as the Beast having taken to the field,at such time your humour not go amiss,as greatly appreceated. I need not inform remind you of your duty.Others of lesser noble birth,tremble as leave the field. The Devil as Satan,standing together with as many legions,such strike fear into the heart, t'will prove to be the mother of all battles....Allah be Praised God is Great ... .. .

Hail Caesar! Your commentaries are (as always) of great interest but yer scribe's translations from the Latin, although pretty good, can be a wee bit garbled here 'n there.
Hope this wee note doesn't pess ye off to where you're considering another invasion! Don't forget ye never managed tae defeat us Scots the first time ye tried that!
Like they say, keep em coming, the missives that is, not yer sojers!

The most interesting of curves into the equation be of the human form,sustaining spiritual essence for thousands of years.Spiritual intellegence ? seemingly an natural element which lays dormant, till set conditions meet, bringing it into play.

Well Rick, I’m no scientist either but Duckphup’s laconic, ‘the Universe just ‘is’ seems to me, in our present state of knowledge, to be the most that can be said on the origin let alone the meaning of the Universe.
The great Russian dramatist, Anton Chekhov, said much the same as Duck when just before his death wrote to his wife, “You ask me what life is? It’s like asking what a carrot is. A carrot is a carrot, and nothing more is known.”

As for the puzzle of ‘time’, some scientist or other, whose name escapes me, said it was that which prevents everything happening at once! Which seems a good enough explanation to me.

"Of course, that probably implies the existence of SOMETHING outside the bounds of our universe... although 'outside' may not be an applicable concept. We have to stay aware of the limitations of our language, when trying to grapple with these kinds of concepts. The REAL language for this sort of thing is mathematics."

What really boggles my mind is with all that the universe is, and encompasses, what might be left outside? it's something I can't get my brain around.. but the possibilities are endless. Wow!

You're absolutely right about needing mathematics. It's why I'm not a scientist. I guess I just like words too much. What frustrates me is that someone can point to a book or a person and say that they or anyone can really describe with any certainty something so indescribable.

Priver wrote: "What if the universe or whatever energy there may have been before the Big Bang created itself? Somehow started the whole thing in motion on its own, without an outside guiding hand?"

That's what I was alluding to earlier, when I wrote: "In the quantum world, though, things (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in-and-out of existence all the time... with NO intent... a completely random process that can (presently) only be dealt with on a statistical basis. If such an event occurs near the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can get 'sucked in' to the singularity... and the other one continues to 'exist' outside the singularity. (See Hawkins re: black holes have hair.) So... it is considered to be within the realm of possibility that some sort of comparable event might account for the existence of the universe."

Of course, that probably implies the existence of SOMETHING outside the bounds of our universe... although 'outside' may not be an applicable concept. We have to stay aware of the limitations of our language, when trying to grapple with these kinds of concepts. The REAL language for this sort of thing is mathematics.

I've been following your discussion as best as my puny mind will let me. :) This is the first really interesting discussion i've seen on these threads. Great job! Can I throw a curve in here?

What if the universe or whatever energy there may have been before the Big Bang created itself? Somehow started the whole thing in motion on its own, without an outside guiding hand? Sort of like the replication of a blastocyst's cells in a mother's womb?

This is just for discussion purposes.. and I will be the first to admit that I have no idea what caused the 'beginning', if in fact there is one, and enjoy learning about science.. and will certainly never claim to have the 'one truth'. Just a different point of view. :)

DUCKPHUP:your reply,generious as be considerate, despite,the overwhelming strength,power of mind. Determination, maintaining humility, be praised.

Mr. Mark,

You say:

Rick -

‘I'm hung up here. Maybe it's semantics.

When you say the universe was "created," are you implying there was a creator?’

Yes, there was a sentient creator in Option (1).

‘If so, then you're leaving out the Big Bang theory as one possibility. Or, do you allow that the Big Bang could have "created" the universe without the aid of a creator (god)?’

I think that some form of matter/energy must have existed prior to the Big Bang, although it is (and may always be) invisible to us in Option (2). I think that either the universe existed eternally before the Big Bang, Option (2); or the creator created it, either some time before the Big Bang, or at the instant of the Big Bang, Option (1).

Thanks for trying to help me out here.

Gerry,

Thanks for attempting to clarify the issue of the ‘time’ dimension of the space-time continuum or fabric, but I’m afraid that you lost me. There may be no help for it, because I’m not a trained astrophysicist. Did everyone else follow Gerry’s discussion: Duck, Mr. Mark, Chip and Bernie Bee?

Things I find troubling:

‘Time, thus is just an element, a dimension of what "is", and the question what was before and what comes after would be inadmissible. Time is subject to the universe, and not: the universe is subject to time.’

I thought that the properties of the space-time continuum were well behaved, understood and quantitatively described by Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity.

‘…the universe just "is", time being one of its qualities. That would save us from the insoluble question of "what was before the Big Bang" and of the question of eternity.’

Why? I think that the idea of eternity in the temporal dimension is just as difficult (if not impossible) for the human mind to grasp as the idea of plus or minus infinity in the spatial dimensions. But I don’t see how this saves us from wondering what happened before and caused the Big Bang.

Don't worry about it David, and I'm glad to hear you got something out of the deal. Hopefully you also learned some of the flaws in the argument that you cited. Thanks for the exchange.

No Chip,

I have taken out a lot of useful information from this discussion. Most importantly a lesson learned on how to have an ethical conversation.

I just hope that you all can realize that what I did was not intentionally harmful. I know now that I should think about stuff like that before doing it. But if I was the only one in this world guilty of that, then why is George Bush still president?

Thanks Chip

"Well, if I've brought anything into this conversation besides hypocrisy and plagiarism I hope that it stimulated some minds to improve brain circulation in hopes of a decrease in the likelihood of brain tumors in the future."

David, I think you succeeded with that just fine. What I find unfortunate is that you seem to be taking nothing away from the conversation.

caesar... I think that your contention that the purpose of the universe is focused on humanity... the inhabitants this one little planet among hundreds of trillions of others... is... well... I'll just say 'naive'. (Other adjectives come to mind... but I'm trying to be nice.)

It's a pretty good bet that within the next 20 - to- 30 years, we will have firmly established that life is only a few of orders of magintude less common than dirt, in the universe... and perhaps even that intelligent life more-or-less common.

The purpose of the universe that it sustain the human form...the purpose of human form that via heart as brain cometh understanding experience. That we may be knowing the essence of creation. The journey already covered in human development being great having reached as passed independent stage of human form making us mobile not rooted to the earth.The brains development per'aps slow but it vital it not overloaded with experience as understanding that we not prepared for,such would be fatal,hence,those wishing an strong experience to convince there being an god,such experience if given would have direst effects,its damage to the brain taking years to heal,one must develop at a balanced pace,such vital.As the equal message in understanding there be those seeking answers for that which they be not prepared to hear,again if given,for such individuals the result being dire.

Gerry... as I pointed out in another thread... a 'law' is just a consistent (persistent?) mathematical relationship that we have happened to 'notice', in nature.

Ok, I get the hint. "Leave David, you heathen Xianist!"

You got it. While I'm gone, I'm gonna try to figure out how man can formulate a way of thinking to decide what is truth or not and call it "logic" by not using logic that did not exist until he thought of it. It might take me awhile....

Well, if I've brought anything into this conversation besides hypocrisy and plagiarism I hope that it stimulated some minds to improve brain circulation in hopes of a decrease in the likelihood of brain tumors in the future.

Good luck all.

P.S.

God exists!!

Hee Hee...

I understand the atheist's point of view. No one needs to prove a negative. No one needs to prove why they are not French, nor a Republican, nor a Christian; and no one needs to prove why they do not believe in God. That is why the insistence that atheists bow down to a belief in God to be a very curious thing. It is not really a sincere argument about anything real; it is an inner psychological struggle.

I also say that I am a Christian and belive in God. But I am not like David. I have inherited my beliefs and I have sought to broaden what was handed down to me. Most church institutions promote religious doctrines, which have been passed down for centuries; they have become fossilized, ossified, calcified, and not particulary valid or useful, in this state.

But we have new knowledge, and new ways of looking at things. Being a Christian does not mean that you have to be stuck in a creaky old ramshackle political institution of yesteryear.

Daniel,

you are confused about the word "law". A "natural law" is not a juridic convention, but a quality of everything existing: The speed of light follows, obviously, a natural "law", or rule, just like the speed of sound through air, or different, through water. Gravity accelerates a "falling" object according to an exactly measurable "law", all over the observable cosmos.

We should try to stay on a level of discussion and not shift into another level according to convenience.

At our present state of affairs in scientific conjecture, which is fascinating and exciting, I would like to chime in with the idea. that since "time" is one of many dimensions, within the concept of branes or other fantastic concepts that still might pop up, the universe just "is", time being one of its qualities. That would save us from the insoluble question of "what was before the Big Bang" and of the question of eternity. Time, thus is just an element, a dimension of what "is", and the question what was before and what comes after would be inadmissible. Time is subject to the universe, and not: the universe is subject to time.

It could even give us some philosophical guide as to the limit of our life: Our life, including its time, just "is", as a process (math.: 1st derivative) from conception to death, as a part of the universe which somehow "created" a consciousness to contemplate itself. (Excuse the word "create", don't get me wrong! I am not implicating any teleology here.) The time relativity would fit well into the general relativity. The idea "eternity is now" would easily fit in here, too.

The natural law that appeals to atheists also includes quantum physics and relativity, which turns out to be an immensely complex and and seemingly bizarre characterizaiton of the fundamental physical existence of all things. Appealing to specific quantum phenomena is not particulary relavant to the discussion of the existence or non-existence of God.

But the very existence of quantum physics, as a way of thinking, and visualizing existence, transforms how we see things. Through quantum physics and relativity, we infer that the physical world extends far beyond the perceptions of our mere senses, and that natural phenomena operate outside of the constraints of mere "common sense." This gives alot of room to speculate on God, and the soul, and makes atheism seem, not a sure and necessary thing, but, also, to me, more speculation.

And I have said earlier, even the term "natural law" is not quite valid; it is a speculative philosophical characterization, seeking to make some order out of the findings of science, but there is no scientific basis for supposing that there is really any such metaphysical existence of any such thing as natural law. We just say that because of the convention of our speech, which makes these words easy to understand, by way of metaphor, or comparision, to functions that are much simpler, than "what makes the universe work."

For Christ's sake David! It wasn't because of just one cut and paste job that you brought shame not only on yerself but on the very Christ ye claim tae follow! Ye kept on and on and would still be at it but for Duck haulin' the carpet from under yer feet! Where Duck and Mr Mark were genuinely trying to explain for you and the rest of us to the best of their ability what they've learned in this life, you kept on trying to undermine them with deceit and subterfuge. I find that totally inexcusable. As my auld hypocrital Uncle Gus would say, "Ye should think black burnin' shame o' yersel'!"

Duck,

Yes, but it seems that the idea of an infinite eternal universe is not very likely either; vanishingly small, I don’t know. Maybe each of the only two possibilities is vanishingly small. Do we really exist? Maybe this is just a dream.

Rick... it just seemed to me that with your (1) and (2), you were setting up a 'False Dichotomy'. I guess you were not doing that... and I certainly don't want to tune you out. I just happen to think that all the varied possibilities are very exciting, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware of them.

I just hope I'm around long enough to see the focus sharpen a little bit more. Do you understand why I regard the 'created' option (implies intent... a 'creator') to have a very low probability?... vanishingly small, as they say?

Thanks Duck,

I think that any, or all, or some combination of your many ‘universes’ can fit within my ‘the universe’. If it is an infinite sequence of cascading black holes (or a multi-verse), the sum total is what I refer to as ‘the universe’.

I think that you are concerned that I am trying to make a case for this god: ‘an infinitely complex, invisible, magical sky-fairy who always existed and always will exist suddenly decided to poof a universe into existence so that he could create life on one small planet among trillions of others, in order to torment the inhabitants and become intimately concerned about their sex-lives.’

Relax, that’s not the case. For now, I’m just trying to establish the relative likelihood that either: (1) the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever.

Let me change my description of the creator to be sentient, just to make things more interesting. The idea that the universe spontaneously materialized from nothing does not seem likely enough to merit consideration. I don’t consider your spontaneous particles appearing near a black whole to be a valid case, because the presence of the black hole can hardly be considered nothing. The big band doesn’t qualify, because something must have existed prior to the big bang, although we have no information on it.

Thanks for your patience; this is helping me immensely to sort things out in my own mind. If I get on your nerves, just tune me out.

Rick wrote: "I postulate that there only two possibilities: (1) the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever. The first possibility is what I call a god concept, saying nothing about the nature of the creator, sentient or otherwise. It would be rather odd if it was some non-sentient creator; and might be considered the same as the universe spontaneously springing into existence from nothing."

Your choice of the word 'created' implies intent... and thus 'intelligence'. In the quantum world, though, things (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in-and-out of existence all the time... with NO intent... a completely random process that can (presently) only be dealt with on a statistical basis. If such an event occurs near the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can get 'sucked in' to the singularity... and the other one continues to 'exist' outside the singularity. (See Hawkins re: black holes have hair.) So... it is considered to be within the realm of possibility that some sort of comparable occurrence might account for the existencs the universe.

It is also within the realm of possibility that OUR universe is the contents of a black hole in ANOTHER universe... and that each and every black hole in OUR universe contains ANOTHER universe.

It is also within the realm of possibility that (as you said) the universe has existed (in some form or another) forever... although 'forever' might not even be a valid concept in that context.

It is also within the realm of possibility that the universe came into existence as a consequence of a collision of 'branes' (membranes) in some other 'super-dimension'.

It is also within the realm of possibility that there are an infinite number of universes, which describes the 'ultimate' reality.

It is also within the realm of possibility that some combination of the above provide the explanation.

It is also within the realm of possibility that there are other possible explanations (maybe dozens) that I am not aware of or able to think of at the moment (probable), or that nobody has managed to think of yet, at all (probable).

It is also a possibility that an infinitely complex, invisible, magical sky-fairy who always existed and always will exist suddenly decided to poof a universe into existence so that he could create life on one small planet among trillions of others, in order to torment the inhabitants and become intimately concerned about their sex-lives. (I rank this as extremely low on the probability list.)

It is possible that somebody will figure this out some day.

It is possible that nobody will EVER figure this out some day.

WHATEVER the outcome... unless IT drops by and explicitly reveals ITself to us, it is HIGHLY unlikely that an evidence-based, intellectally honest, justifiable reason for invoking the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy' hypothesis will arise. The 'existence' of such an entity would require a MORE powerful explanation than does the universe itself... PARTICULARLY in the context of a universe in which everything we see tells us that complexity arises from simplicity.

Does it STILL seem like a 50/50 proposition?

David: "Anyway, if I'm forced to site the source of every amount of knowledge that I have, then I hope you have all day."

That one source would have been fine - then it wouldn't have been plagiarism - and that goes for in life as well as in the classroom. Plagiarism is lying. Ask your pastor.

Here's the deal, David. In the future, if I see you on another thread starting a similar discussion with other people, I'll say "For an example of David's communication style, go to___" Then I'll refer them this link so they can see for themselves how you operate and make an informed decision about continuing the conversation.

For David

I don't think anyone hates you, and this is not a question of forgiveness. It is just a small thing. It is just that, going round and round with the argument, "yes, but" is tedious, and makes everyone a little tired. I do not think it is sincere.

For the time being, why not give up on trying to compell, by way of your logic, for everyone to see that God must exist, and concentrate on other aspects of Christianity. There are other aspects, you know, and I don't mean join a "stamp-out-the-gays" committee.

I think the question "how to be a Christian without being a jerk" would be a good thing to contemplate or discuss, not that you are a jerk, necessarily, but I think most everyone knows what I am getting at.

Chip,

You say: ‘I'd consider myself someone who puts the likelihood of there being a god as vanishingly small, but I would add to that statement "vanishingly small for all practical purposes."...As to your two possibilities I would say that there may be many more possibilities than that. We're simply limited by the linear way in which we experience time, and by the information we have available to extrapolate from. We have no idea if the universe is all that there is or if it exists inside of some larger framework.’

I think that your ‘many more possibilities’ can be placed in one of my postulated two possibilities: (1) either the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever; hence my 50/50 coin toss.

Please note that I make no attempt to describe the creator, sentient or otherwise.

Thanks for the link to ‘The Elegant Universe’. I will enjoy viewing that this weekend.

Rick -

I'm hung up here. Maybe it's semantics.

When you say the universe was "created," are you implying there was a creator? If so, then you're leaving out the Big Bang theory as one possibility. Or, do you allow that the Big Bang could have "created" the universe without the aid of a creator (god)?

You need to define what you mean by created for me. Sorry I'm not understanding this basic point.

Mr Mark,

You say: ‘As far as how the universe got started, I don't know and I'm quite sure that I'll never know. I do know that the idea of the universe springing "from nothing" is a limited way of looking at what constitutes "nothing." I also know that if one embraces the idea the universe is infinite and has always been here has nothing to do with whether or not a god was/is involved.’

I postulate that there only two possibilities: (1) the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever. The first possibility is what I call a god concept, saying nothing about the nature of the creator, sentient or otherwise. It would be rather odd if it was some non-sentient creator; and might be considered the same as the universe spontaneously springing into existence from nothing.

You say: ‘I'm puzzled as to why you give the god idea a 50/50 chance of being viable. You seem to hold some special pleading for god despite a total lack of evidence for his existence.’

No, I really have no preference. As I said, I postulate that there are only two possibilities; hence 50/50 coin toss.

E Fav,

Sorry I forgot we are in "Atheism 101". Sorry my mistake, I guess this IS a college classroom.

Ok, I already asked for forgiveness and have not recieved it and understand that I do not deserve it. Amazingly enough, that is exactly how I accepted Christ. Anyway, if I'm forced to site the source of every amount of knowledge that I have, then I hope you have all day. I guess I'll just give you one. I've cited before that making the absolute statement that "God does not exist" pre-supposes infinite knowledge. I learned that from Dr. Ravi Zacharias and in those exact words. Are you really that upset that I learned from someone else? When you were in college didn't you? I'm sure we are all guilty of repeat statements from the sources of our knowledge and quite possibly mine was more deliberate. But nonetheless I still understand the statement but for some reason am presumed that I do not understand the discussion at hand. If that's the case how do I know you do not understand the theory of evolution. You learned it from someone else, right?

So, of course as I expect, I expect several atheists to begin the name calling. So, I guess it's not in your moral code to "take the high road", huh? Instaed being labeled an "idiot" somehow makes you more intelligent, right, Duck? By the way, Duck, I've never used the name "The Moderate" before, so bad assumption. I've always used the name "David" and even that doesn't narrow me down because I've seen a few David's on here and they were not me. Maybe after this discussion I'll change my name to David T. Sound good? I'd give my full last name, but I don't want you to find me. You scare me a little. :)

Chip,

Thanks for not hating me. I know I am frustrating. You should try living with me. :) My wife will tell you....lol.

Gerry,

You made a great point. I'm putting logic into a material category. Of course naturally this is how we think of things as "existing". So I guess the only way a conversation like this can go further is if we can agree that things non-material can exist. And again, maybe I'm thinking way too far into this, but hear me out for a minute. Would you say that conceptual ideas exist? For example: does communism exist. It's not material, but an ideaology. It exists in our concept of an ideaology and by nature is conceptual. It's a conceptual idea, not a material item, but of course is not absolute. My point is that ideas, logic, and the thought process in general exists in our minds. Some of these thought processes are absolute, such as the logical absolute I posted before. Our minds are not absolute, but the conceptual idea of a logical absolute has existed before our minds were even created (or came to be as you would say). Otherwise, that logical absolute would not be absolute. So do you define absolutes as only something that can exist from a specific point in time when our minds existed? Here is something else to confuse us all with. Before man existed let's go to a specific point in time. Let's say post Big Bang, pre-humanity. Did the universe exist and not exist at the same time? So did conceptual thoughts exist before our thoughts existed? Do you get where I'm going with this?

You said,

"Things and their interactions exist without (and before and after) anybody observing them. Or do you really adhere to this rather "juvenile" notion that things exist only as far as we observe them?"

This statement is what applies to the naturalist, not me. Of course depending on if conceptual absolutes can be defined as "existing". The logical absolutes posted before existed but could not be observed until our minds were created. Therefore, it is "juvenile" to believe that something does not exist because we could not observe it? Maybe like God? Or maybe something more simple like conceptual absolutes?

Thanks,

David

david: "I merely assumed that establishing a starting point off of someone elses statement was not abusive or harmful whatsoever. Unfortunately I guess it was."

This suggests to me that you've never written a term paper, or you've had very negligent teachers, who didn't tell you the rules about citing your sources, and who did notice when you didn't cite your sources and/or perhaps you missed that class and didn't get the notes from a classmate, or you're dishonest.

Duckphup, et al - you are real troopers.

I think we have met David before...

... as 'The Moderate': newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/09/cult_plus_time_equals_religion/all_comments.html

... as 'Vinny': newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/09/blank_for_now/all_comments.html (Note that the DuckPhup 'surrender' post [dope-slapping] went right over Vinny's head. Remind you of anything?)

Possibly a few others. I think that the distinguishing characteristics are an absolute immunity to actual knowledge. logic, reason and critical thinking... a peculiar, indomitable affinity for willful ignorance... and is generally oblivious to the obvious.

I think that the MOST troubling aspect of all this is that the 'quality' of this person's 'thinking' is 'genuine'... what you see is what you get. What I mean is that this person THINKS he is being logical... THINKS that the arguments are valid... THINKS that he is thinking critically. And then, there is this... he is typical. The only 'unique' aspect is that he has decided to 'contribute' to these forums. That is what we are REALLY up against... 250 million+ Moderate/Vinnie/Davids.

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience." ~ Dilbert

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." ~ Jonathan Swift

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert Heinlein

Daniel,

your example of the "logical" assumption in former times that the earth is flat is not logically valid.

An observation is an observation is an observation... It is not a logical conclusion, and it can be incomplete. The observation of the earth was incomplete, erroneous, misleading, but it was not "logical". It was an assumption, based on a later debunked probability. (The resulting religious "certainty" and its historical implications are a different topic)

David,

as someone only half involved in the discussion, I don't understand that you try to put a logical observation into the same category as a material fact. Duckphup has exhaustively described that (man-made) logic is only a "method" to assess if something is true or false. You fall into one of those many semantic traps. Things and their interactions exist without (and before and after) anybody observing them. Or do you really adhere to this rather "juvenile" notion that things exist only as far as we observe them?

Thus, your assertion that (by using a common box for things and their "logical" observation) you have dismantled a contradiction is - false.

David, also, I'm sure someone could come up with an example of where that statement isn't true. You'd have to define exactly what you mean by "exist" and in what context you mean it.

For example, if the context is, say, on the table as opposed to on the floor, and you're talking about an object that can only be in one place at one time, then that object would both exist on the table and not exist on the floor at the same time.

David, I don't hate you at all. I just find you frustrating.

"Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. But then if it's forever true, how was it not true before man realized that it was true?"

Obviously it had to be true before man could realize it was true, right? Our realizing it was true didn't suddenly cause it's trueness to spring into being. What do you think that proves? I'm still not clear on that.

Hi,

Remember me? You guys still hate me? Or did you sleep it off? Ok, you still hate me. I may not be that "impressive young man" that you wanted me to be, but for some reason I probably never was to any of you simply because I have concluded that God exists.

I totally understand why you might not want to talk to me but hey I thought I would give it a shot. I'm not convinced that something as simple as one cut and paste paragraph is your reasoning for ending this discussion. So let me put it in my own words and if no response, then hey, I gave it my all and let's move on.

"Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time"

This statement is FOREVER true. It can never be falsified. So this statement is a logical absolute that has existed forever.

You tell me that man made this statement at some point in his mind.

But then if it's forever true, how was it not true before man realized that it was true?

What you are telling me goes against the very logical absolute that is posted above. That that absolute "existed and not existed at the same time". But of course only existed when man thought of it.

A FOREVER true conceptual idea that cannot be explained in a naturalistic worldview. I never said I had proof of God. I keep reading how "David tries to prove God", but I even told Mr. Mark that I have no proof, only evidence. I even said that this may not be sufficient evidence for him to believe in God, but nevertheless it is evidence. And most importantly it is evidence that the naturalistic point of view cannot answer without positing some kind of infinite being or of course resorting to the "infinite universe" theory which is in direct contradiction to scientific findings.

But anyway, I best be on. I can see the natives are restless and I feel the arrows pointed my way. Say good-bye to the evil Xianist! Bwaaa haa haa haa!

"You reap what you sow" I like that Mr. Mark. A little taste of my own medicine, huh?

"He who has not sinned, cast the first stone".

David

David, your borrowed questions have been answered over and over again. Since you still don't seem to think they have been I can only draw one of two conclusions... either you're not terribly bright or you're engaged in what's known as trolling, which is to be purposely contrarian just for the sake of creating an argument rather than an honest discussion. I too feel cheated for having taken so much time to try and patiently address your questions. At least the discussion may have been interesting to other readers.

It still boggles my mind that you can't see the logical fallacy of your borrowed argument, which is, in fact, affirming the consequent.

"Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time." True

"Logical absolutes exist" True

"Man made logical absolutes at one point in time." The statement is true, but the way you're using it is false. Man simply described something that already existed using the language of logic. So?

"Before man made logical absolutes, man did not exist." True

Your argument is akin to being amazed that rocks existed before man came along and decided to call them rocks, and then acting as if that somehow proves something related to god. If you can't see the foolishness of that argument then I have to wonder how it is you manage to feed yourself or use anything pointy without accidentally putting your eyes out.

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

Rick,

I'd consider myself someone who puts the likelihood of there being a god as vanishingly small, but I would add to that statement "vanishingly small for all practical purposes." I have to use some objective measure for determining what's likely and what isn't, so I go by what can and can't be deduced from the available evidence. Since there is no evidence that points to a god or gods then for all practical purposes there's no compelling reason to consider that possibility or assign it any likelihood at all.

As to your two possibilities I would say that there may be many more possibilities than that. We're simply limited by the linear way in which we experience time, and by the information we have available to extrapolate from. We have no idea if the universe is all that there is or if it exists inside of some larger framework. I think if we ever come close to a definitive answer it will probably be hundreds or thousands or years from now, if ever. It's fun to contemplate, but I don't really try to draw any metaphysical conclusions from what little we know.

Have you ever seen the PBS Nova documentary "The Elegant Universe"? It's great. I was a liberal arts major, so my understanding of theoretical physics is rudimentary at best, but I find the subject fascinating. You can watch the whole thing online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
It's well worth the time.

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

Duckphup, thanks for the detailed description of how agnosticism and atheism are essentially the same thing. I've been arguing that with people (agnostics who claim that they're not atheists) for years (and quite a bit on this forum recently), and I'm always amazed at how outraged some self-described agnostics get at being called atheists. I think many people claim that position for emotional rather than logical reasons. I like to call it the "I'm not with those people" position.

RICK wrote (OCTOBER 5, 2007 8:54 AM): "Atheists/agnostics believe that god does not exist, although they are very careful to leave open the possibility that it does exist."

Actually, I do not deem that to be a correct statement. There are some subtleties involved which escape the notice of most people. These subtleties involve the nature of 'belief', 'knowledge', context-based distinctions in the meaning of words, and the implications of those distinctions. Consider the following sentences:

(1) I BELIEVE that gods DO exist. (Theist. Asserts a 'truth' value... and thus carries a burden of proof.)

(2) I DO NOT believe that gods DO exist. (defines 'atheist' - negates 'theist'. Makes NO assertion of a 'truth value'... essentially just calls 'bullsh*t' on the 'truth' assertion of theist. There is no burden of proof associated with this position.)

(3) I BELIEVE that gods DO NOT exist. ('Strong atheist' position. Asserts a 'truth' value, and thus carries a burden of proof. HOWEVER... since this position asserts the non-existence of gods, that means that such an individual DOES NOT believe that gods DO exist. So... this position falls UNDER the defining statement of atheist (2)... but DOES NOT 'define' atheist.) (Think of a Venn diagram.) So... all 'STRONG atheists' are atheists... but NOT all atheists are 'STRONG atheists'.

(4) "I do not (can not) KNOW whether god DOES or DOES NOT exist. (Agnostic. But notice that since the agnostic does not KNOW whether gods do or do not exist, the agnostic individual DOES NOT believe that gods DO exist. Like the 'STRONG atheist' position, agnostic falls UNDER the defining statement of atheist (2)... but DOES NOT 'define' atheist. So... ALL agnostics are atheists... but NOT all atheists are agnostics.

(2) DEFINES 'atheist'... a LACK of belief in the existence of gods. But even though this DEFINES 'atheist', it is sometimes referred to as the 'weak' atheist position... also known as the 'atheist-agnostic' position...

(3) is sometimes referred to as the 'strong' atheist position.

Notice that (2) (weak atheist position) is also TRUE for both (3) and (4). Also, pay particular attention to the qualitative difference between (2) and (3)... then you should be able to appreciate that there is NOTHING about (2) which is 'faith-based'... but (3) MIGHT be called 'faith-based'.

If you don't 'know' whether or not god exists (4), then you do not 'believe' in god (2).

If you 'believe' that god DOES NOT exist (3), then you do not 'believe' that god exists (2).

So, the common denominator between 'agnostic' and 'atheist' is that neither position harbors a 'belief' in god... and thus, both are 'non-believers'. So... again... all agnostics are atheists... but not all atheists are agnostics.

This also seems to be the only position that makes sense, since for someone to say that they 'believe' that there is no god implies a logical proposition that 'god DOES NOT exist = true'. THAT implies that there must be some kind of logical 'proof' for that assertion... and, of course, since it is impossible to prove such a thing in the absence of infinite knowledge. Further... if you possessed the infinite knowledge necessary to 'prove' such a logical proposition, then you would fulfill the definition of a god yourself, and end up in a 'Divine Paradox'. Thus, position (3) is logically untenable... just the same as religious 'belief' (1) is logically untenable.

The weak atheist position (2) is characterized by an ABSENSE of belief, brought about by the lack of evidence that would be necessary to initiate or sustain such a 'belief'. In this sense, the absence of belief in god is equivalent to an absence of belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Thor, Garden Gnomes, Bridge Trolls and a china teapot in orbit around the sun (Bertrand Russell). The weak atheist (agnostic) position bears no burden of proof, since it is not asserting anything to be 'true'. This position merely finds that there is no compelling evidence to support the idea that invisible, magical, supernatural sky-fairies (gods) exist.

As always, it should be understood that when I say 'belief', I am referring to an internalized (part of one's self-description) certainty that one knows the 'TRUTH' pertaining to matters regarding fundamental aspects of existence and/or reality... that your ideas correlate to reality. Scientists know that all such ;knowledge' is 'provisional'... faith-based 'belief' is NOT regarded as 'provisional'... it is regarded as a certainty. Such convictions do not represent knowledge... they represent the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., self-delusion. And I am not referring to 'trivial' belief... every-day 'belief', that we talk about in ordinary conversation.

RICK wrote: "Most atheists put the likelihood of existence at near 0, or vanishingly small as they say. Agnostics (like myself) may tend to rate the likelihood of existence higher, say 50/50. Actually this is a fine distinction, and many consider there to be no difference between atheists and agnostics. Thus I say that I am atheist/agnostic."

I think that the real distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist calls 'bullsh*t' and the agnostic says 'I don't know'... but that gets them to the same intellectual space... "I DO NOT believe that gods DO exist (2)." Within that intellectual 'phase space', I think that it is useless to try to draw a distinction as to what percentage of probability one might assign to the question of whether gods do or do not exist, based upon how one happened to enter that phase space.

I agree that most atheists and most agnostics are, in fact, what you have referred to as 'atheist/agnostics'. Like I said, the key thing that differentiates the atheist from the agnostic is that the atheist calls 'bullsh*t', and the agnostic says "I don't know'. BUT... if you sit down with the atheist, and quiz him on the REASONS why he called 'bullsh*t' on the idea that gods exist, we will (usually) come to find out that it is because the other side is asserting the 'truth' of a proposition for which there is no compelling evidence in support... and so there is no valid way to 'know' (gnosis) whether the proposition is true, or not... and that sounds an awful lot like 'agnostic', to me.

In other words... this atheist/agnostic distinction is... at its core... trivial horsesh*t.

RICK wrote: "If you are an atheist, please explain why you rate the likelihood of god’s existence as vanishingly small. Keep in mind that the only two alternatives are also not compelling: either (1) that the universe that we can all see around us sprang into existence from nothing, or (2) that it has existed forever, from negative infinity to the present."

Well, it just so happens that I DO rate the likelihood of god's existence as vanishingly small... and here's the key to understanding why. Darwin's greatest contribution to science was NOT the TOE... it was the shocking IDEA that complexity could arise from simplicity. And as this idea permeated throughout the OTHER scientific disciplines (it took a long time), it turned out that EVERYWHERE we look in the universe... everything we look AT in the universe... tells us EXACTLY the same thing... that complexity arises from simplicity. (Look up: 'Self-organizing complex systems') (Look up: 'emergence')

BEFORE Darwin, after 1,200 years or so of Christian-enforced ignorance and dogma, the idea of a universe WITHOUT a creator was unthinkable. The entire history of science (before that, 'natural philosophy') had been devoted to trying to look behind the curtain and figure out what tricks god was using to keep his automated tinker-toy set running. But gradually, after Darwin, a new paradigm began to emerge... a new and useful way of looking at things, and thinking about things. It tells us that things can be explained... the universe can be explained... WITHOUT resort to the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy hypothesis'.

By the way... I am not even going to try to address your (1) and (2)... they present a 'False Dichotomy'... "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle'.

RICK wrote: "The negative infinity point on the timeline is also hard to get ones mind around. And if infinite time exists, the other dimensions of the space-time fabric are also probably infinite."

There is no compelling reason to think that 'time' even 'exists', apart from human consciousness. In other words, it is much more likely that we do not 'experience' time, so much as we 'create' it.

I think that the only thing that is likely to result from trying to 'get your mind around' the things that you brought up here is having your head explode. There is a very good reason for why you have not been able to get your head around these ideas... you CAN'T. NOBODY can... not even the astrophysicists, the theorists, that are WORKING on this stuff. Why?... Because our brains aren't WIRED for it. Are brains are wired for interacting in a Cartesian/Newtonian phase-space. We can deal easily with 3-dimensions... we can 'experience (although not fully comprehend) a 4th dimension... but beyond that, our brains go into la-la land... scrambled in confusion. The ONLY way to deal with these ideas is through an entirely different language than the ones we use in our everyday existence... the languages that we THINK in... and that language is mathematics. These theorists are NOT understanding the concepts... they are understanding the MATH that DESCRIBES the concepts. Big difference.

RICK wrote: "These assertions of an eternal and infinite universe seem to be no more likely than the existence of god."

That is because you don't understand. But there is no reason to feel special about that... NOBODY does. Just keep up with what is happening at the cutting edge... Lisa Randall, for example. Every now and then, one of these egg-heads comes out of the lab and tries to give us an idea of where the current thinking is, in words that we can (sort of) understand. Just keep on the lookout for that.

Thanks for that, Rick... after David, that was really refreshing and enjoyable. I hope that my ramblings might provide you with some useful insights.

To all the guys:

In all of this back-and-fourth, I sense that is some degree of enjoyment in the argument. And that is fine.

But, there can be no logical proof in the existence of God. Mere logic is not enough. Logic can be used to spin all kinds of fanciful arguments and beliefs. In fact, for most of human history, people believed that the world was flat; and why did they believe this? Because it seemed logical. And, it does, if you don't have the proper perspective. Just standing in a single spot, and looking around, with no other information than your visual perception, why wouldn't anybody think the world is flat? But, it is not.

Belief in God is an assumption. If person A makes the assumption that God exists, and person B does not make that assumption, then they will maintain permanently divergent belief systems, and it is futile and pointless to argue from a logical point of view.

The assumption that God exists derives from personal, inner feelings. Delving into those feeling would be more fruitful in the discussion of the existence of God.

I am not sure that many people are able to determine, freely their own beliefs. They accept their inheritance of beliefs without question. You cannot blame people for this; they cannot help it. But even for people who realize that their heritage of beliefs may not be right, and seek to explore beyond this heritabe, even these people only have limited freedom in determing their own beliefs, since the coninuing contingencies of existence are limited for each of us, and what else can we base our belief on, but our own experiences?

But if you believe in a sort of existential experience sealed from human knowledge, which might fall under the category of "supernatural" but which really cannot be characterized by such a word, since it is specifically conceptual, then how would you convey this "feeling" to someone else? Not by logic or scientific proof.

Would you use the word "mystical?" That is not quite right. Would you use the word "transcendental?" Still not quite right. Certainly, magic, and astrology are not right. I couldn't say how to describe this belief. These words which are our tools for thinking, are not really good enough to convey such a feeling.

When people like David try to prove the existence of God to non-believers, he is not really trying to convince you; he is trying to convince himself. He is struggling with his inherited beliefs, which you are punching holes in, and he is trying to maintain them. So, he is not such a lost cause after all; he seemed aware that his point of view is not quite right, even though he did not affirmatively admit it.

Rick -

I thought that I had answered your "vanishingly small chance of god" question above.

As far as how the universe got started, I don't know and I'm quite sure that I'll never know. I do know that the idea of the universe springing "from nothing" is a limited way of looking at what constitutes "nothing." I also know that if one embraces the idea the the universe is infinite and has always been here has nothing to do with whether or not a god was/is involved.

What I do know is that there's not much chance of the god of the Bible - who didn't have the power to help defeat the chariots of iron in Judges - could hardly have had the power necessary to create the universe or the multiverse.

I'm puzzled as to why you give the god idea a 50/50 chance of being viable. You seem to hold some special pleading for god despite a total lack of evidence for his existence.

Well done Duck and Mr Mark. Sadly I will remove David from my list of impressive young men.

Now, back to business, here is a question that I just posed to WP. Maybe you can help me with the answer; we have already lain some of the initial groundwork:

Atheists/agnostics believe that god does not exist, although they are very careful to leave open the possibility that it does exist. Most atheists put the likelihood of existence at near 0, or vanishingly small as they say. Agnostics (like myself) may tend to rate the likelihood of existence higher, say 50/50. Actually this is a fine distinction, and many consider there to be no difference between atheists and agnostics. Thus I say that I am atheist/agnostic.

If you are an atheist, please explain why you rate the likelihood of god’s existence as vanishingly small. Keep in mind that the only two alternatives are also not compelling: either (1) that the universe that we can all see around us sprang into existence from nothing, or (2) that it has existed forever, from negative infinity to the present. The negative infinity point on the timeline is also hard to get ones mind around. And if infinite time exists, the other dimensions of the space-time fabric are also probably infinite. These assertions of an eternal and infinite universe seem to be no more likely than the existence of god.

Mr. Mark,

All I did was cut and paste one paragraph to establish a starting point for this discussion. I am by far no literary genius and thought that that paragraph was the best description to get a start in establishing what the conversation would detail. The rest I have responded on my own. I did do some of my own studies in logical fallacies and absolutes prior to this discussion. What I did not like in the carm.org article was the fact that the guy who wrote it said that the naturalistic worldview had no response. I wanted to hear a response from an actual naturalist to conclude if this discussion can be held as logical evidence for the existence of God. I hope that you would find that I did not intentionally mean any harm and if what you would like is an apology, please forgive me. I take no credit for that paragraph, but I do take credit for the rest of the responses in which I still deem logical and have yet to hear a response. I do not feel though that it was dishonest at all to establish a starting point for this discussion based on another writers paragraph, but what I do regret is not telling you that it was another writers paragraph. And for some reason I still do not understand how that automatically makes it so that I must not understand the paragraph or the argument proposed.

So if you would like you of course can discontinue our conversation. I have given my honest and hard working thoughts into this discussion after a simple cut and paste of a starting point for the discussion. I was expecting a refutation of some sort, but here's what I got.

Logical absolutes exist
Man created logical absolutes over an extended period of time

But what I do not see as logical is how can they be absolutes (meaning forever true) if they did not exist until they were created by man?

Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time.

Logical absolutes exist

Man made logical absolutes at one point in time.

Before man made logical absolutes, man did not exist.

Please tell me how I do not understand this, by a simple cut and paste to establish an argument?

Again, forgive me if that was offensive on my part. It was not intentional at all. I merely assumed that establishing a starting point off of someone elses statement was not abusive or harmful whatsoever. Unfortunately I guess it was.

I guess if you do not reply I understand. I will use this argument again in the future. I will use that paragraph again in the future to establish a starting point in the debate. Next time I will make sure to include that I copied it from carm.org and would like to expand on that paragraph. I hope that would sound better and in the end maybe end with a result.

Good luck to you.

Dear David -

I've just read Duckphup's post wherein he lays bare the cut-n-paste job you undertook in this conversation. Your response to him is an admission by you that this is, in fact, what you have been doing.

I must say that I am gravely disappointed in you. I think your actions are the height of dishonesty and a real slap in the face to those of us who have naively engaged you in what we believed was an honest discussion.

Duckphup is correct in saying that you don't even comprehend the arguments you're trying to make. It also accounts for your not being able to understand the detailed responses you've received. While you were busy cutting and pasting, the rest of us were answering you HONESTLY while providing SOURCES and links to sources to back up our arguments. We were not taking the thoughts and words of someone else and claiming they were our own, but that's what you were doing. I take it as a personal insult that you would sit at your keyboard - perhaps giggling the whole time - while we naive atheists busted our humps to present you with arguments from every angle to help you understand our arguments. The truth is, you didn't have any interest whatsoever in digesting our answers and formulating a response. How could you? You didn't even bother understanding the argument you put forth. Rather, you were simply regurgitating Xianist talking points with the same facility as the right-wing media wh*res who regurgitate the daily talking points from the White House.

This leads me to a conclusion that I am sad to say I hold, and that is that you are acting in very much a Christian way. That is to say, your behavior is TYPICAL of the Xians that I meet in every day life and, in particular, on this blog. The level of dishonesty and ignorance is matched only by the laissez-faire attitude that such behavior is acceptable as long as you're carrying the ball for Jesus. Well, David, that may be acceptable in the circles of dishonest religionists with which you run, but it isn't acceptable to me and I would gainsay it isn't acceptable to those on both sides of the argument who make their best HONEST effort to debate these issues.

So, this is my last post to you, David. Not so much hard feelings as disappointment, a disappointment fueled as much by my getting suckered by yet another dishonest Xian as it is by your dishonesty throughout this debate.

As they say, you reap what you sow.

Later...not.

Duck,

I'm not sure what the problem is. You still haven't answered the question. Does it matter where or whom I recieve my information from? Does that make everything I have said less true or are you just upset? I've read that a long time ago. I've never used this argument in a discussion before and thought, hey what the heck, let's try it out. It is on the CARM.ORG website if you want to see it fully. I have frequented that site for probably a couple of years to find out some information about mormonism. I happened to read the "logical absolute argument" one day and thought that eventually I'll try it out in the real world to see what I get. So far so good. If you want more logical absolutes, I can give you some.

So because I learned about logical absolutes on a website and because I used the conversation in that website to establish some absolute truths what does that prove? You make a logical fallacy by claiming that I do not understand what they mean because I copied what was written? So if you learned biology from a college and copied a description from your textbook about...let's say....evolution...does that make evolution any less true? Or does that make your understanding of evolution less true or reliable? Not really.

So then, you tell me "the universe IS". Is what? It just "IS"? Am I supposed to believe the universe is...maybe what your saying.....eternal? Infinite?? But naturalistic worldviews oppose this idea. What is it you are trying to tell me?

So it's a poor conclusion on your part to establish that I have no idea what the conversation is about simply because I started the conversation off by a repeat of one paragraph. If I have no idea what we are talking about, then why can't I get an answer on how a logical absolute can be absolute if you are putting it in a time frame of existence?? Is that proof that I know what I'm talking about? I thought of that all on my own, like a big boy.

So copying a paragraph to establish some absolutes and to establish the argument at hand automatically makes me a fraud, huh? And you assume that I have no idea what the arguments are about because of the fact that I copied one paragraph. Well, Chip, posted something about "affirming the consequent". Isn't that a copy and paste? And if so can I conclude he has no idea what it means. No! So why do you do that with me? I guess I'm gonna make a logical fallacy of my own and conclude that you call me a cheat, a liar and a fraud because you cannot win this argument based on your inability to understand absolutes in their nature and especially in your naturalistic worldview. Oh how the fallacousness feels so good sometimes, even when it's illogical, huh?

Anyway, still waiting.......................

Absolutes cannot be restricted by time. Any other answers??

David... here is the key piece of this puzzle... or your puzzle, I guess I should say. It doesn't seem to be a puzzle to anyone else that's involved in this.

The universe just IS. In order to try to understand the universe, we ask questions about it. 'Logic' is a system of rigorous language-based rules which was devised by humans to provide a consistent means of making sense out of the answers we get to those questions... to construct 'valid' arguments... and to communicate with each other about those questions and answers.

A 'logical absolute' is a proposition that always evaluates to 'true'. Using the (stolen) example that you gave...that something cannot exist and NOT exist at the same time. If A = TRUE then NOT A = FALSE. That is ALWAYS true. But there is absolutely NOTHING mystical or supernatural about that... in fact, we can also call that a 'truism', or a 'tautology'. It is no more mystifying than asserting that 1 = 1. (Next, I suppose your going to ask us WHY 1 = 1.)

Logic is not a FEATURE of the universe... it is merely CONTINGENT on the universe. In other words, logic 'exists' (abstractly) ONLY when we call it into play. And then, it 'exists' only in the minds of those who are 'playing' with it. And the RULES of logic 'exist' only because we (humans) have taken the time to write them down, after we invented them.

Think of this as a potentiality/actuality sort of thing... if there is no one present to ask the questions, there are no answers. The questions that we ask are not innate properties of the universe... they are constructs from our minds. The answers that we get are contingent on both the questions that we ask and the current state of the universe when we ask them. That is all. If there is no mind involved in evaluating and processing the answers, then there is no 'logic'. 'Logic' is not an intrinsic feature or property of matter, or of the universe... it is a rule-based process that takes place in our minds.

Interesting thing though... I did a Google search to make sure that my memory was serving me correctly... that I had not missed something, or forgotten something about 'logical absolutes'. What I discovered was that you have not had one original thought through all of this back-and-forth process... that your entire bogus and fallacious argument was cockroached from a web page... http://theseedsower.org/pMach/more.php?id=A1722_0_1_0_M

Anyway... the 'logic' of your source is bogus... and you are a fraud and a cheat and a liar.

Web site: "For example, I asked if it was a logical absolute that something could exist and also not exist at the same time."

David: "For example would you say that something can exist and not exist at the same time. If no, then that is a logical absolute right?

Web site: "Another example is that something cannot bring itself into existence."

David: "Something cannot bring itself into existence"

Web site: "I then asked him to explain how logical absolutes can exist if there is no God. I questioned him further by asking him to tell me how in a purely physical universe logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, can exist. I said, they cannot be measured, put in the test tube, weighed, nor captured; yet, they exist."

David: "So, since logic exists and absolute logic exists how does it exist in a purely naturalistic worldview without the existence of God? So how can logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, exist? They cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed nor captured, but yet they exist."

Web site: "I then went on to say that these conceptual absolutes logically must exist in the mind of an absolute God because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe."

David: "My conclusion is that they logically must exist in the mind of an absolute being (God, if you will) because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe."

Of course, this explains why you have not been able to understand the lucid counters to your arguments... that being that you don't even understand the arguments that you are making... you have stolen them... and you were not able to see that they were bogus BEFORE you stole them... all you saw was that they seemed to serve your purpose. You type "My conclusion is "... and then you paste somebody else's words.

There is plenty more... anyone who is interested can just go to that web page and simply search the page for 'logical absolute'.

Again, David... you are a fraud and a cheat and a liar... and I am done with you. Bugger off.

Mr. Mark,

I posted a response and I see it didn't make it. I guess sometimes this site doesn't work too well. So, I'll try to repeat what I posted beforehand.

I do appreciate the nice response Mr. Mark. I want to establish something that is off the subject since you have seemed to indicate you once had a faith in God. In being a former Christian, I'm sure you are aware of the Great Commission. My intent on being here is not self-motivated. In other words, I'm not here to win arguments for the sake of winning arguments so I can go back to all my buddies and say "Look what I did". Like I mentioned before, if the hearts do not come to Christ, then no one wins regardless if I have proved something or not. With that in mind I would also like to reassure you that my intentions here are to defend Christ and try to win hearts, not for me, but for the God that I have faith in. Because you know personally what it means to be saved and how that is applied to faith, I would hope that you see my intentions as an act of love for you so that you can recieve the reward that I believe to be true. Because you know my faith by experience I hope you can understand that I am not here for me, but for you and that this discussion is not so that I can be lifted on my "high horse" per se, but because I care for my fellow man in hopes of him recieving what I have faith in. An act of love, if you can believe that. I know you do not believe in my faith, but I would hope you understand because of that faith is how you can know I care about you and those who I'm having this discussion with. Thanks.

On to the subject.

""...my meaning was that logic was devised over tens of thousands of years of humanoids learning by experience (often tragically), forming family and tribal groups (and an attendant set of ethics and morals to build and preserve the same) to eventually being able to think abstractly about the benefits and consequences of actions they had yet to take."

So the logical absolutes that we established, according to you, did not exist prior to the evolutionary process by humans to establish that they exist. Hmmm....hold up...I'm thinking...

Ok, that is an answer, but I still stand where I left off before in response to that answer. By definition logical absolutes mean they are not confined by time or space but are always true no matter what. So what you are telling me is that these "humaniods" did not exist until they realized they existed. Logical absolute: something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. This is an absolute that is always true, correct? So how come it only became true when man's knowledge was able to comprehend it? And again, didn't man have to have some form of logical absolutes to even make these logical absolutes? How do you come to a logical position by not using logic? So, the logical absolute that something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time was not true until man finally realized that? Isn't this going back to my analogy of how dinosaurs did not exist until man found dinosaur bones? If the logical absolute that something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time was not true until man figured it out, then did man exist or not exist? Are you seeing my point yet? I do believe you are making an absolute into a relative even though it's absolutely absolute.

So, you asked if you answered the question. Yes, you did, but it is illogical to put an absolute in a time frame of an evolutionary process. That would mean it's not absolute, right?

Chip,

you said,

"David, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and then tell us how your argument isn't guilty of it, that is if you ever choose to actually present a cogent argument rather than trying to cajole us into whatever "gotcha!" you think it is you're setting up."

So, I was told that I hold the "burden of proof" for God since I claimed to have some evidence. But now you claim to have some evidence that my argument is illogical and are asking me to point out my own illogic? Well, that's not fair is it? I do think you are now the Mr. "burden of proof" to prove my arguments fall under the "affirming the consequent" illogic. So if you can please show me my error. If it is conclusive that I have been erroneous, no problem. I never said I was perfect. Actually, I'm quite illogical at times, like the most of us, just ask my wife. And I'm not setting up anything, Chip. The setup is already done. I'm still wondering how a logical absolute can still be absolute when put in a specific time frame, since according to the argument at hand, that is what I've been proposed with.

Oh by the way, Mr. Mark,

Don't worry about me being in the "lion's den". We do know how that story turned out, right?

Hee Hee!

Good day to you all.

David, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and then tell us how your argument isn't guilty of it, that is if you ever choose to actually present a cogent argument rather than trying to cajole us into whatever "gotcha!" you think it is you're setting up.

Dear David -

I don't mean to be rude, but you keep posing questions that have been answered and answered in some depth. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining how you can possibly think your questions haven't been answered, because they have. Posing the question "again...and again...and again" (to use your phraseology) will only elicit the same reasoned responses or variations thereof.

On the other side, asserting that you "have shown the illogic in the assumption that the mind of man created logical absolutes because then that would require the mind to already possess logical absolutes," doesn't mean you have shown any such thing. Assertations are not evidences. More directly, your statement completely ignores my direct response to your question on logic when I wrote: "...my meaning was that logic was devised over tens of thousands of years of humanoids learning by experience (often tragically), forming family and tribal groups (and an attendant set of ethics and morals to build and preserve the same) to eventually being able to think abstractly about the benefits and consequences of actions they had yet to take."

Do you feel that is not answering the question? If not, how so?

You've also decided to engage in turning the argument back at those you call the "naturalists" by averring that our arguments are made from a "limited" perspective. That's like saying a brain surgeon is "limiting" himself when he refuses to avail himself of the jar of pixie dust offered by the religionist as an alternative to the surgery about to be performed.

David, I used to be a religionist myself. Quite a fervent one, to tell the truth, and I recall how I saw it almost as a mission from god to walk into the "lion's den" of conversations like the one happening here. I'd throw my religious non-sequitor bombs into the conversation and assume that no one was buying my arguments because they just didn't have the holy spirit inside them. Then, I'd head back to by circle of religionists who would pat me on the back for preachin' the Lord's word to them naturalists. It was almost a rite of passage, truth be told.

In retrospect, I realize that faith-bolstered and -encouraged ignorance gave me the fortitude to do these things, even as it failed to provide me with a cogent response or counter response. So much for the Lord's shield.

I mention this because I hope that you're not caught in this particular web of self delusion. It's a strange mix of the squeaky wheel hoping to get the grease and the authoritarian parent whose kids better get used to taking "because I said so" as an answer.

I look forward to your response.

Duck,

By the way your ranting about Jesus and the Bible does nothing to help your case. You are still unable to answer any of my question logically.

I do suggest you stay on subject otherwise your unuseful ranting and raving over what's written in the Bible is just a way for you to avoid the topic at hand and somehow just try to make me look foolish. If that's the way you want to go, I understand, but in a debate it is a sign of struggle on your part and really your waving the white flag at me right now with nothing else to say than to attack Christianity.

So calling an infinite being or God, a fairy or a divine piece of cheese, or ranting on about Biblical writings, is just your way of crawling out from behind your rock to throw a little something in my face.

I guess what I can tell you is that when you throw mud in peoples face, you not only lose ground, but your hands get dirty as well.

Duck,

You almost got it. Except you still haven't answered the question. You admittedly cannot say logic does not exist. (And by the way when I wrote 'absolute logic' I meant logical absolutes, I thought we cleared that up. Just a mental error my friend.) Anyway, you cannot say logical absolutes do not exist, but at the same time you cannot explain how they exist in a purely physical universe. And the best thing I've heard was that logical absolutes did not exist until man thought of them in which I replied: How did he think of them? With logic? Still no answer. So where am I stuck at? If you do not believe logical absolutes exist in a naturalistic worldview, then how did a naturalistic worldview become a logical explanation? If they do exist then how?? No answer yet. So, you proposed an answer that logic is a conceptual idea that could not have existed until man thought of the word "logic". Again....how did he come up with that system of thought, by using that system of thought which did not exist until man thought of that system of thought?

I do understand a naturalistic worldview limits your thinking to just a physical universe. Logic is not matter but yet it exists. It did not bring itself into existence though because then it would have needed to already exist. And again what you are telling me which is illogical is that dinosaurs never existed until man found dinosaur fossils. Of course that is a physical description so that maybe in your worldview you can understand what I'm saying.

So it seems science and logic go hand in hand. Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation is not true. Therefore something cannot bring itself into existence. Like the universe? Matter is not eternal or infinite, therefore only something infinite could have created matter. Then you have the infinite regression argument, but even that is illogical. Because if something infinite had to create the finite, then how is it logical for something else infinite to create the infinite? If the infinite could be created then it would not be infinite. Get it?

So again....and again...and again....do logical absolutes exist in a naturalistic worldview? Obviously I have shown the illogic in the assumption that the mind of man created logical absolutes because then that would require the mind to already possess logical absolutes. Can I just get an honest answer? Please just tell me no, logical absolutes do not exist in a naturalistic worldview. Then we are done. Or please, just tell me they exist and the only logical explanation is an infinite being, but yet because you are stuck in a naturalistic worldview you cannot admit to an infinite being or else you would no longer possess a naturalistic worldview.

And by the way, please don't let me go into the illogic of making an absolute statement that God does not exist. And by the way, claiming that an infinite being called "divine cheese" is exactly what I expect from a naturalistic worldview because the only way for you to comprehend an infinite being is if you create Him to be finite material, such as "spoiled milk in your fridge that sings Hamlet". This obviously shows that the naturalists thinking can only take them so far and sure does not help your case. Calling an infinite being something that is finite by nature is self refuting and shows the illogic.

What I have presented is the fact that there is evidence for God. That the only logical solution for the existence of logical absolutes is an infinite being. This still has yet to be refuted. Now, I am not saying that this is proof of God or a specific God, but evidence for the existence of such a being.

I'm sure I will not get a logical explanation. That's fine, because I am realizing how the thinking of a naturalist works now and how it is limited to the physical universe even though somehow the non-physical existence of logical absolutes are used to form this hypothesis. Anywho, have a great day everyone. No offense meant in our little arguments. I know when we challenge each other's beliefs sometimes it can seem harsh or offensive, but just to let you know, I am only challenging the ideaology of your beliefs and I expect the same. This is why pluralism is a good thing. It keeps every ideaology on an even plane.

Good day

David

Mr Mark,

Thanks kid, I’m glad we all agree at least that we don’t have a clue what the *#% we’re doing here.

Reply to Duckphup

Oh, well, when you put it that way...

There are many and varied strains of Christianity. Most Christians do not even know what they believe, so it is not necessarily correct to attribute to all Christians politically derived doctrines which church organization may maintain, but which individual congregants have never given much thought to. Many Christians cannot even name the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, even though they are repeated and repeated in church and are still very commonly known names.

I was born into a Christian family, and we went to church every Sunday. I was taught all those Bible stories from birth, including the story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. But, I was also taught from birth, that the story of Adam and Eve was an allegorical story. I was taught this under the supervision of Sunday School teachers in a mainline church. Literal belief in the Bible is not a characteristic of Christianity, just certain strains. If they claim to be the "true" Christians, so what else is new?

Of course you can't believe it was an allegorical story if you don't know what an allegory is. Most people don't. When I was very little, I was taught what an allegory was. Just like Mr. Rogers, the adults said, "can you say allegory?"

Mostly, I don't argue about it with people, except really aggressive people, which co-incidentally happens to be born-again-fundamentalis-christian-evangelicals, and almost never, atheists.

David's Argument...

ARGUMENT FROM SOPHISTRY AND OBFUSCATION

1) I can get atheists to admit that 'logic' exists, even though they insist that it is just an abstraction; i.e., a set of formalized language-based tools for evaluating and establishing the 'truth' value of propositions, and building these into 'arguments'. But that is just a semantic quibble, so I can choose to overlook it.

2) Having gotten the atheists to admit that logic 'exists' (although I take that to mean that 'logic' has some form of corporeal manifestation in the physical universe, and they don't), I now introduce the term 'logical absolute', and try to get them to agree that IT 'exists'.

3) Having been told that 'logical absolute' simply refers to a logical proposition that is always 'true', I conveniently ignore that, and deftly turn 'logical absolute' around so that it becomes 'absolute logic', and then declare that they have agreed to that... and now, by me having declared that they 'agree' (because I have said so) that 'absolute 'logic' actually 'exists' (has some form of independent corporeal existence in the physical universe), I am now in a position to demand they they explain where it comes from.

4) Since one of the definitions of the word 'absolute' means something that has an independent form of existence in reality, I can declare that 'logic' is a feature of the universe, and that it would 'exist' whether humans had ever thought of it or not... conveniently ignoring the fact that 'logic' is a facet of abstract human thought processes and language... and that it was 'invented'.

5) Since I am incapable of understanding the atheists' explanations for why my entire mode of thinking is fallacious, and my arguments are not 'valid', and would not recognize an actual 'logical' argument if it jumped out of the bushes and bit me on the arse, I am now in a position to declare that 'logic' has a corporeal form of existence in the physical universe, and it would exist even if humans had never thunk it up; so the only 'logical' explanation for that is that 'logic' was made a feature of reality by (or already existed in the mind of) an invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy... (petito principii)

6) Therefore, god exists.

Is that about right, David?

Before you reply, please give some consideration to this... you believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

You DO know that's insane... right?

Dear Rick -

Like Chip, I also admit that I don't know how it all began. In fact, I have a pretty good idea that I'll never know.

I disagree with you that there are only "2 or 3 possibile equally likely solutions" for how the universe got started. Mankind is at the dawn of thinking about such things. For most of our historic existence, there was only one solution imaginable - "god did it!"

Thank...well...er, god we've grown up a bit since then.

Ergo, it stands to REASON - at least to me - that "god" would be the least-likely solution for how it all started, and I say that based on the little we understand now about the universe here in 2007. I can't see how god-as-solution could have a 50/50 or even a 30% chance of being a viable solution, even with the poor science we have today as yardstick (I use the word "poor" in the sense of what knowledge we'll have in 20, 50 or 100 years, considering how scientific knowledge increases exponentially, in contrast to religious "knowledge" whose "possible solution" gaps are ever-shrinking).

Usually, I defer to my elders, but not on this one. :)

Mr Mark,

Thanks for the reply; you still rate the likelihood of the existence of god as vanishingly small. But how do rate the likelihood that the universe sprang into existence from nothing, or has been here forever?

As to my disproving your contention, that the probability that god exists is vanishingly small; I say that it is no less likely than the probability that the universe sprang into existence from nothing, or exists on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time.

If there only 2 or 3 possibile equally likely solutions; all 2 or 3 liklihoods must be much greater than vanishingly small.

I like Chip's honest answer: 'I don't know'. I don't either, that's why I rated the liklihood at 50/50.

BTW I am 64, so there you go, back to being an incredibly impressive young man again.

Dear Rick -

Two other things: I'm 53 years old, so I don't think I qualify for inclusion in the "incredibly impressive YOUNG men" club.

Second point: you said, "I don't believe you have reason to believe it's true" that "the probability that God exists [is] ‘vanishingly small." Perhaps you can tell me why you think I'm wrong? I'd ask you to present evidence - not opinion - to support a contrary position.

Thanks.

Rick, re "But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?"

The only intellectually honest thing I can say about that question is "I don't know." I can also say that the only viable way we're ever going to get closer to a legitimate answer to how the universe came to be is through observation and science. There are plenty of interesting theories. My current favorite is membrane theory. I don't take any answer on faith, but I definitely prefer those that are based on observation, evidence, and the scientific method. A wild guess based on nothing (god) is not in any way a satisfactory or useful answer. If it was then anything meeting that same standard of evidence (none) would be an equally valid answer. That's the main point I've been trying to make. It's no more logical to posit god as creator of the universe than it is to posit that the universe was created by omnipotent cheese. Something completely unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence might be fun to think about but it's certainly nothing to base an intellectual framework on, or devote one's life to. I may as well sit next to my fridge and concentrate really hard on my gallon of milk, hoping it will start reciting Hamlet in a way that I can hear.

David writes, "So all I've heard is that I cannot win this argument and that positing an infinite being is useless and pointless. To you it is because you've already made up your mind."

Then you've missed the point. I haven't made up my mind at all. I don't take things on faith. I'll wait and see where the evidence leads without making an unwarranted leap into the supernatural. I can do that precisely because I'm NOT trying to justify any preconceived notions.

Dear David -

I think that Chip gave you a very good explanation of things. No need for me to add.

An observation: you seem to be moving to a "god of the gaps" explanation. I say that because you seem to be viewing everything through the lens of, "and, POOF, it suddenly happened." Well, that's always the Bible version of things, but it isn't the way things happen in a natural universe.

I say this because you use phrases like, "when did man COME UP WITH logic?". You're saying that is akin to, "so, when did Steve Jobs come up with the iPod?" Again, this exhibits thinking in the "and suddenly, poof, it appeared" manner.

Perhaps I should take some blame for this as I used the phrase "logic was devised by men." Such wording elicits visions of a few cavemen getting together and saying, "OK, guys. Today's agenda: devise logic," when my meaning was that logic was devised over tens of thousands of years of humanoids learning by experience (often tragically), forming family and tribal groups (and an attendant set of ethics and morals to build and preserve the same) to eventually being able to think abstractly about the benefits and consequences of actions they had yet to take.

Rick sez:

"Mr Mark et al, you take a huge advantage by noting that our atheist/agnostic lack of belief is not a matter of absolute faith, thus placing the burden of proof on David. However, I get the feeling that you consider the probability that God exists to be ‘vanishingly small’ to use Gerry’s term. I don’t think you have reason to believe this is true. If I am wrong, please make your case."

I have reason to believe this is true because there is no reason - or shall we say, evidence - to believe otherwise. In fact, the "evidence" of god's existence as outlined in the world's so-called holy books is having the lie put to it on a daily basis by science and enlightenment. I don't see a reversal of that trend. What I see is - to borrow a phrase from the unctuous Grover Norquist - is a time when religion has gotten so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. That's already happened in the civilized world (outside of the USA and a few of the Catholic-dominated countries), and it WILL eventually happen in the USA.

By definition, the only way to make a case for god is to enter the realm of fantasy. There is no REAL proof for god. None at all. It's a philosophical concept that is, unfortunately, encumbered with a ton of baggage from the Bronze-Age zeitgeist when man's collective knowledge was in its infancy. Religion - as Christopher Hitchens has said - was man's first and worst attempt at a scientific explanation for things not understood. Well, we've moved on in the past 4,000 years.

I believe that there is not a single thing in this world (and universe, for that matter) that can't be explained by rational and natural means. As LaPlace told Napoleon when asked why god didn't appear in LaPlace's calculations that postulated black holes, "Je n'ai besoin de cette hypothèse."

Those words rang true then, and they ring true now.

And, at the end of the day, it's not up to me to prove non-existence - ie: a negative - anyway, is it?

Thanks for the chat. Back at ya.

Bernie Bee,

Hey buddy. When did I call you a knucklehead? If I did I meant it sarcastically. What I really meant is that you are a knucklebrain! :) just kidding...

I don't get that transbubstantiation thing either. In fact I believe it's not even real. You would think that if the bread turned to the actual flesh of Jesus then maybe it would look different or taste different. Same thing with the wine. I happen to think it's a hoax.

So all I've heard is that I cannot win this argument and that positing an infinite being is useless and pointless. To you it is because you've already made up your mind.

But here's what I got so far. We all acknowledge the existence of logical absolutes. I've proved my point that logical absolutes could not have been created by man but are pre-existant. What I'm waiting to hear is an admittance from the naturalists that their worldview cannot explain this phenomena and just maybe the possibility of an absolute, infinite being is possible (and I will accept 'unlikely' if you want to add that). But in reality, this is an argument neither one of us can win. Even if you do admit to the truth that logical absolutes cannot fit into a naturalistic worldview I still lose. Why you may ask? Because by my faith I feel like I didn't win until you accept Christ. No matter what the outcome of a "logical absolute" argument, I lose.

But yet again, I hear that absolutes do not give evidence for an absolute being, but of course with no explanation. Just a statement with no meaning I guess.

So, I guess I've done my part. Even if you admit to the logical fallacy in arguing that logical absolutes are man-made, I still lose, or maybe if there is a God, you are the one losing in the end.

Chip said "I'm hopeless". I'm not sure how Chip. I do have a lot of hope. A hope in Jesus and eternal life with Him, no matter how crazy that may sound to you, but it is still hope. Now, if the only way I can be hopeful is to abandon my faith then my hope lies in the only end of becoming worm food with a life with no meaning, just being me....a random colocation of atoms that got lucky to be here somehow by chance. Yeah, that's uplifting! That sure is hopeful! Hate to pull out the Pascal's wager bit on ya, but if for some reason I'm wrong, in the end I regret nothing. My life is fulfilling. Yours may be too, but if you are wrong......

All in all, it's been a good conversation. Thank you all. If I did not have faith, I could not imagine how my life could be more fulfilling. Without faith, I'm stuck hopeless and meaningless. "Just a random colocation of atoms". There are many question that great atheistic philosophers have asked themselves and I see how atheism gives no hope or meaning, even if for some random chance it is true.

1. Living brings a risk of pain. Emotional and physical. You live and possibly see the death of loved one, maybe a child or parent. Why go through that? What is stopping me from killing myself if we are just meaningless creatures destined to struggle and feel some kind of pain or emotional struggle? Why not end it all and cease to exist and not worry anymore? Why not commit suicide?

2. If there is no God, then when you hear bombs blasting, sniper kills ten, looters go looting, that is merely the sound of man worshipping his maker.

And last but not least as a Christian I feel compelled to bring in the Gospel. You can stop reading from this point if you want to. I know you hate "faith talk". I believe in absolutes, logical and moral. God gave us these absolutes to live by. And naturalistically as I've proven they cannot be accounted for in that worldview. Morally we could not keep those absolutes. No matter how hard we try we can never be perfect. Therefore we are disobeying our Creator. God sent His Son to die for us that by faith in Him we can be forgiven by our Creator. Christianity has become a religion which is what I know you all hate. I don't care too much for religion as well as it can be corrupted since "religion" itself is man-made. Christianity is and always has been meant to be a relationship. A relationship with the Creator of all. Nothing more than an I love you, I love you back relationship. That simple. But of course that requires faith. The same faith that your husbands and wives love you and in how that cannot be forced but taken faithfully. That simple and no need to make it more complicated as religion itself has done.

Wishing you all the best. Opposing belief systems can still mean friendships are possible. I hope that we can be called friends in light of our differences. Take care everyone.

David

Susan,

Do you still read the responses to your essay?

I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Chip,

You say: ‘Since we know milk, Hamlet, and sentience all exist, it's far more likely that my milk is reciting Hamlet than it is that there's a god.’

But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Oops, that last post (11:17am) was mine.

David "So what you were telling me was that language was a pre-supposition to having logic. In other words, if you cannot describe something with language then you cannot make a logical conclusion."

What I was saying was that the fact that we can only convey and evaluate information through human devised systems does not change the nature of the information being conveyed or evaluated. That does not, in any way, make the god hypothesis more likely. You are arguing the god of the gaps, based on the belief that there could be no absolutes without god. That's simply a wild assumption that isn't based on any evidence.

Think of the sum of human knowledge as a map with the streets comprised of what we've been able to observe and connect together. Your argument is like saying that once we get beyond the edge of the map we must be in another world entirely. That's a silly way to look at it, because the more we learn, observe, and deduce, we're always eventually able to connect that new information to our existing map to further describe the natural world we inhabit. There's no honest, logical, or supportable way to get to god by following the map of our knowledge. The only honest place you can get to is "we don't know where this is, yet." God is like the "here be dragons" that was noted in uncharted territories of the incomplete maps of ancient mariners*. Their dragons, like god, could only exist in the gaps. Gaps that eventually closed. There weren't any dragons.

Rick, Re "I think this is not a fair example. The nature of milk is much more familiar and known to us than either the unknowable postulated omniscient God or the unknowable extent of the universe."

You're right. Since we know milk, Hamlet, and sentience all exist, it's far more likely that my milk is reciting Hamlet than it is that there's a god.

*just as an interesting side note, the "here be dragons" thing is a popular myth which isn't actually true. There aren't any maps on which it appears. I used it as an example because it makes an excellent allegory for god of the gaps reasoning. More info can be found here: http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html

Thanks Randall, for the uplifting thoughts.

Thanks Bernie Bee and Caesar for the laughs; we all can use more of that.

I will serve as the Village Idiot in search of the Holy Grail of enlightenment. Directions please, to my first wicket?

One can put the case for as against GOD to fellow beings such then being praised,ridiculed,as with advice that one should consult family doctor,as dependent on the insight,as experiences,of each individuals understanding.Seemingly, one starts the spiritual journey being of sound mind,where one then be teased gradually enticed as charmed seduced as captured in their captivation of GOD. Proud outstanding fully erect independent mature adults, reduced to that of, drivelling imbeciles whom give incoherent statements,finding,as having drunk from the holy grail.The solution,to solving this problem be that an imbecile be sent on the spiritual journey thus the experience of GOD in having "reversed syndrome effect" Where the hoped result,that produced,be a complete human being in a state of enlightenment.Theory such will work be based on quantum physics,in acordance to relative atomic organisms,if experiment a success then the imbecile will return from spiritual journey being of sound mind,fully enabled, more than capable of explaining all mysteries,which at present remain unanswered,unknown to humanity... .

Ms Jacoby – As a Christian I want to say two things: I do not hate you or any other atheist. And my understanding of God suggests that He does not either. In fact, I believe He accepts you and other atheists just the way you are.

I would also like to say thanks for coming to our defense. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris can be pretty rough, though no rougher than some who share my faith I guess.

If you step back and look at theists and atheists we share more than one may think. Both groups are part of the same world and share the same history. Both groups are made up of people of "faith". Theists look at the physical world and the history of mankind and believe there is a purpose to it all and that it has a Creator. Atheists believe just the opposite. Neither group knows for sure. And within each group are those who take their “faith” to oppressive extremes.

It is certainly disingenuous (I am trying to be polite) to suggest that religion is responsible for all the evil done by mankind. Our faith teaches that when faced with accusations of our human sinfulness we should remind our accusers that they should look at themselves, in this case their own, before casting the first stone. Likewise the same can be said about how we Christians treat nonbelievers or others whose faith is different from ours.

Suffice it to say that mankind at his worst has been despicable. But mankind at his best has been “totally awesome.” That is life as it was created to be. There is a purpose to all of creation but I digress.

My appreciation of my Christian faith at this point in my life suggests that theists and atheists can truly benefit from a frank and open dialogue with each other. Faith is a process, much like evolution. It begins with disbelief. That process is part of what some call the wisdom of creation. Personally I find that reading what you, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens have written has led me to a better understanding of what I believe and why.

Socrates once said that we "shall be better, braver, and more active (human beings) if we believe it right to look for what we don't know than if we believe there is no point in looking because what we don't know we can never discover."

The history of man and faith suggests he was right.

David, Mr Mark, Chip, Duckphop, Gerry,

Did I miss anyone? Thanks for the show. Wow! You guys are incredibly impressive young men who have striven mightily to prove the unprovable.

David, though I am a recent convert to the atheist/agnostic camp, I admire your passion. Don’t be dismayed, as I am sure you are not, that you cannot win this debate. As I said, you are valiantly trying to prove the unprovable.

Mr Mark et al, you take a huge advantage by noting that our atheist/agnostic lack of belief is not a matter of absolute faith, thus placing the burden of proof on David. However, I get the feeling that you consider the probability that God exists to be ‘vanishingly small’ to use Gerry’s term. I don’t think you have reason to believe this is true. If I am wrong, please make your case.

In my view, there are two equally likely unprovable possibilities: (1) David’s view of an absolute, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being; and (2) the view of an infinite, eternal universe that has always been here and will always be here with no creator required. There is absolutely no evidence to support either conclusion, and probably will not be in our lifetime. So I place the odds at 50/50.

Chip, I like your hilarious example of claiming without supporting evidence that you have sentient milk reciting Hamlet in your refrigerator in a pitch of voice beyond our hearing range. Then you say, ‘I can’t provide evidence that this is true, and you can’t provide evidence that it is not. Does this mean the odds are 50/50?’

I think this is not a fair example. The nature of milk is much more familiar and known to us than either the unknowable postulated omniscient God or the unknowable extent of the universe.

David has marked me down as a knucklehead, and well, I can’t deny there have been occasions when I’ve been called worse than that. Now here we have David taken on a wonderful journey of enlightenment by such as Duckphup and Mr Mark but still no wiser than when he set out. And in a way, that reminded of my own self when I couldn’t grasp what my dear auld Uncle Fergus had patiently explained for me more than once the rudiments of ‘transubstantiation’ only to end up dismissing me with “If ye send a turnip round every country in the world ten times it will still come back a turnip. Well-travelled, aye—but as thick and unenlightened as ever!”

Even so, I’m still not too sure about this transubstantiation thing.

Chip,

Why give up? Are you that hard up to not give in to the possibility of an infinite being?

What you just told me was illogical. I'm sure you get that already. I guess I will expand even more.

So what you were telling me was that language was a pre-supposition to having logic. In other words, if you cannot describe something with language then you cannot make a logical conclusion. Ok...let's try this shall we?

Mr. Caveman cannot speak. He does not know what language is. He has no way of communicating to anyone else what he wants to say because words are non-existant at this point due to a lack of knowledge in language. So far logic does not exist. Let's suppose Mr. Caveman made found a fire created by lightening in the forest (of course since he does not have the logic to make one yet). He puts his hand in the fire. RRRR...he doesn't know what hurt or burn means but I'm sure he came to a logical conclusion that he could not put his hand in the fire because it gives him a feeling that he does not like. It doesn't take language to make a logical conclusion that fire hurts. But quite possibly the first cuss word was invented. :)

So, again why quit? Is it because I am making a logical assesment?

Best to you, Chip. Thanks for the dialogue. Have a good night.

I give up. You're hopeless.

Chip,

Ok, let me get this straight. It's all in agreement for the non-believers that logic itself was created by man in his own mind one day to be able to discern what is true and false. Therefore logic did not exist prior to this "enlightenment", I should call it, I guess.

So I have a question. How did man come up with logic? By using logic? If so, then logic did exist prior to man's "enlightenment" and therefore negating the whole "man-made" theory. If not, then the only explanation would be some divine revelation which would require an infinite being. So man created a system of thought..... by using the same system of thought.... that did not exist prior to using this system of thought.

So are you to tell me that dinosaurs did not exist until man found dinosaur fossils?

:)

David, let's simplify this a bit, okay? "The Earth is not flat" is a true statement. I've just used language to convey that information. Language is a system invented by men to deal with information, specifically to facilitate the exchange of information. By using language to convey information I do not change the reality of whatever it is I'm trying to convey. So your argument is like saying "But wait?! If language was created by man, and you used language to state that the earth is not flat, and it's an absolute that the earth is not flat, how could the earth not be flat without god?!" Huh? *head explodes*

Logic, like language, is a system for dealing with information. Where language is used to convey it, logic is used to evaluate it. You could say that "the earth is not flat" is a logical absolute because we know that it's always true within a specific context (like anything related to the shape of the earth since the time of its formation until now). If you were to hear someone claim something that couldn't be true unless the earth was flat, you can deduce logically that what they've said is untrue, because you already know that it isn't flat. That's all logic is. It's simply comparing new information against what we know to be true to determine whether it's true or false, and to build relationships between pieces of information. Now when a logical person gets to the end of that chain to where there's not enough information to deduce anything useful, they'll say honestly "Not enough information. I can't deduce anything more." When you get to that same point you say "Aha! God!" and leap off into wild assumption.

Try a little thought experiment. Substitute god with the sentient milk in my refrigerator that recites hamlet that I mentioned earlier. Now pretend that for your entire life you were told that my sentient milk is the source of morality, creator of the universe, and everything else you attribute to god. You would be trying just as hard to rationalize that as you are trying to rationalize god, and it would be equally logically sound, which is to say, not at all. There exists no information to allow a logical progression that ends with milk reciting Hamlet. The only way you could end up there is because other people have told you that my sentient milk is the source of all absolute truths. The only difference between that and your concept of god is that it's funnier (but not by much).

Mr. Mark,

Sorry my friend, that just will not do.

Logic is a way of thinking devised by men....hmmm...smells fishy.

So let me get this straight. You are telling me that logic does not exist and there are no logical absolutes? That logical absolutes were man-made, but if they were man-made (at some point, God knows...) then how are they absolute? Isn't that like telling me that this earth was man-made at some point only because man found out that this is earth?

I do believe you cannot admit that logical absolutes exist. Here is why. Because if they do exist as an absolute, then the naturalistic worldview has no explanation for their existence because it cannot explain that conceptual ideas in an absolute sense are real unless positing an absolute being. So, if logical absolutes are not real or exist, what you have been saying to me is illogical and of course not true. In fact if there were no logical absolutes, nothing is true and we do not exist as well. Our existence is man-made......some how.....I guess.....I think I'm confusing myself now. LOL!

So how bout it.

Again...

Does logic exist. And do logical absolutes exist?

If you say yes they exist then please tell me how they exist in a naturalistic worldview. If they do not exist, then tell me why I should believe one word you are saying or even understand anything to be true or real?

C'mon guys, stop avoiding the question. It's an easy one. Exist or no. Logical absolutes anyone? And how so by nature alone? Please.....????

Dear David -

Thanks for staying in the conversation. I fear Duckphup and I have been tag-teaming on you.

As to logic - as Duck so cogent said, logic is "an abstract language-based intellectual tool-kit that was invented by men?... sure. As something that has some kind of corporeal existence in the physical universe? No. Logic is a 'paradigm'... a useful way of thinking about things. A system of intellectual 'rules' for establishing the 'truth' value of propositions."

I think the short answer is that logic is a way of thinking devised by men, not a system devised by god to order "his" universe.

David, I appreciate the fact that you are searching for answers, at least I hope you are. My suggestion - read some of the books suggested by Duckphup, or explore the aspects of science that are very, very busy seeking the EXPLANATIONS for your questions, rather than accepting religious answers that aren't answers at all, but -as David pointed out - absolutes lacking any basis in fact, parading around as pre-determined results looking for evidence - any evidence - that will add a veneer of truth to the supposition.

Keep looking, my friend.

Ok fellas I admit, I'm thinking very very deeply here, but I think that is the point. Instead of arguing over what nature God is and what does eternal and all the other little catch phrases mean specifically, I'm still awaiting the answer to the question at hand.

Logic exists. We know this to be true. There are logical absolutes (sorry Duck for doing the reverse earlier, you know what I meant). Therefore since we know logic exists in a conceptual nature in an absolute sense, how does a naturalistic worldview explain for this existence? Again, you cannot use scientific means to prove the existence of such logic, but yet logic is existant. How does the naturalistic worldview account for this existence?

By the way Mr. Mark, I'm not arguing over which "God" and the such right now. We're not talking theology right now, but if you would like I present "God" as an absolute infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being. You can argue over Biblical reasoning later if you want, but I'm stating that this descriptive God is the one responsible for logical absolutes. But please, I'm still awaiting an answer to the above.

By the way "common sense" is an ad populum right? Just because it is common does not make it true. I do think I know a little bit about logic. Maybe not..... :(

Thanks fellas.

DAVID wrote (OCTOBER 3, 2007 4:43 PM): "Ok, I will assume that you agree with me that logic exists."

As an abstract language-based intellectual tool-kit that was invented by men?... sure. As something that has some kind of corporeal existence in the physical universe? No. Logic is a 'paradigm'... a useful way of thinking about things. A system of intellectual 'rules' for establishing the 'truth' value of propositions.

Later (much later), logic was incorporated into mathematics, and the requisite mathematical rules were derived.

DAVID wrote: "I asked if you agree with me that there are logical absolutes. I will give you two logical absolutes to prove my point and ASSUME again that you agree that they are logical absolutes."

Yes... logical absolutes are propositions that are always true... a standard of rationality.

DAVID wrote: "1. Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. This is a logical absolute, correct?"

With 'thing' meaning some object that has (or CAN have) a corporeal form of existence in the physical universe... yes. It is possible, though, to hold two different propositions as 'true' at the same time, without experiencing 'cognitive dissonance'; that is called 'doublethink'... and it is one of the symptoms of christian mental-conditioning.

DAVID wrote: "2. Something cannot bring itself into existence."

That is true... in our ordinary day-to-day world... the phase-space in which we 'operate'. I am troubled, though, by the way that you have constructed that assertion. It implies 'intent'... i.e., something bringing itself into existence concomitant with an act of will. If some 'thing' does not exist, then the requisite equipment to form the intent which would bring it into existence is absent... the 'intent' cannot be formed. Therefore, the 'thing' cannot 'will' itself into existence.

But here... since you have IMPLIED that, without having come out and SAID it... I expect the onset of sophistry related to this non-point, later on.

Anyway... at the QUANTUM level, things (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in-and-out of existence all the time... no intent... no cause. If this occurs at the event horizon of a singularity, the particles may become separated before they can mutually annihilate one another. So... while something cannot (willfully, I suppose you mean) bring itself into existence, simple 'things' popping into existence randomly is a routine occurrence in the universe. (Look up: zero-point energy)

DAVID wrote: "The illogic in that is that it would have to exist beforehand to be able to bring itself into existence therefore the statement is illogical and deeming itself an absolute logical statement that something cannot bring itself into existence."

Again... you are implying intent. You are not making a point here... you are expressing a truism. In other words, you are getting yourself all tangled up in the obvious, and beating it to death. But what is it that you are implying is 'bringing itself into existence', as an act of will? The universe? An idea? Are you trying to imply (or setting an 'atheist trap') that atheists (or scientists) assert that the universe has willed itself into existence from an initial state of non-being? I sure hope not, because... well... never mind. I am trying to be kind.

DAVID wrote: "So, since logic exists and absolute logic exists how does it exist in a purely naturalistic world-view without the existence of God? So how can logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, exist? They cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed nor captured, but yet they exist."

OK... here you have flown out the window, and entered la-la-land. How did 'logical absolute' get turned around into 'absolute logic'? Again... logic is not a 'thing'... please go back to the top. And all that 'logical absolute' means is a logical proposition that is 'always true'.

DAVID wrote: "My conclusion is that they logically must exist in the mind of an absolute being (God, if you will) because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe."

Your conclusion is totally whacked. They are merely ideas... abstractions... they are not intrinsic 'properties' of matter. And 'logical absolute' has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of invisible, magical sky-fairies.

DAVID wrote: "And since logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent being."

It is ridiculous to think that it is logical 'of necessity' that a 'transcendent, omnipresent being' exist, in order for humans to conceptualize ideas.

DAVID wrote: "To this I also add that if there is a an absolute God with an absolute mind, then he is the standard of all things as well as morals."

I would add that if you keep up with this line of thought much longer, we're going to start thinking that you are hallucinating.

DAVID wrote: "Therefore I can conclude that morals, being conceptual as well, are absolute too. I know morals is a different subject that if you would like we can later talk about, but right now in this discussion, I'm wondering if you can give me evidence on how absolute logic can exist in a purely physical universe."

The 'idea' that some things (ideas) are 'always true' (logical absolute) can exist within the human mind. That is quite enough. In this context, the word 'absolute' has nothing to do with existence, reality or anything 'beyond' reality... it merely has to do with human-invented, formalized, language-based 'rules' for evaluating the 'truth' value of ideas. That is all.

Question... how can you 'think' like that, without having your head explode? Whoops... sorry... I forgot. I'm trying to be nice.

Oops... I see that there is more...

David wrote (OCTOBER 3, 2007 6:03 PM): "The notion of an infinite being is illogical in it's own."

Yep... it sure is.

David wrote "I find that God is incomprehensible by nature but at the same time the only plausible answer for logical absolutes."

God is the only possible reason for why some logical propositions are always true? LOL. I don't think so.

David wrote "As I've stated that a logical absolute is that something cannot bring itself into existence OF COURSE does not apply to the notion of an infinite being, a Creator of time itself, no matter how illogical the position may be to you, I find it to be the only way that absolute logic can exist."

Again... you have twisted 'logical absolute' (a logical proposition that is always true) into 'absolute logic'. And I am getting the impression that you are equating 'thinking' with 'logic'. Big mistake. You seem to have a very limited understanding or familiarity with formal logic... you have learned a few terms and buzzwords... you misunderstand them... you apply them inappropriately... draw invalid conclusions... and then go off on some tangent, thinking that you are being 'logical'... and you are not.

David wrote: "Of course I've heard the argument about what brought God into existence and I'm sure you've heard the same response that God has always existed. But has time always existed?"

Actually, there is no compelling reason to think that time even 'exists', apart from human consciousness. In other words, we do not 'experience' time... we 'create' it.

Anyway I just can't go on with the rest of this. David... sorry... it is just nonsense. I feel like MY head is going to explode. I can't think of a kind way to say that. You really need to read some books. Try 'Quantum Reality'... I can't remember who wrote that. Anyway... good luck. It is good that you are thinking about this kind of stuff... but I think you are exerting WAY too much effort trying to stuff the universe into a conceptual box that YOU have constructed... one that involves an invisible, magical sky-fairy. Better you should expend your energy trying to come up to speed in familiarizing yourself with current scientific thought. Those guys know what they are doing. You, my friend, do not. Science is doing just fine WITHOUT having to resort to the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairy hypothesis'. Also... you should LEARN logic before you try to use it. Many naive people equate 'logic' with 'common sense'. Sorry... NOT the same thing.

I’ve lost my bearings more than once attempting to keep up with the to and fro in the way logic (or otherwise) is expounded and the speedy rate at which the exchanges arrive.
However, I became completely lost with David claiming: “So it all boils down to the BIG question. What created God? The only logical explanation for that is that God does not exist in time but is Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal.”

As far as I’m aware, time is a human construct that doesn’t really exist at all. So am I being logical (or otherwise) to conclude that as God does not exist in time, and as time does not exist then….Oh help!

Dear David -

You write: "Like I said, it's evidence for me, maybe not you. But I hope you can agree that it is reasonable evidence."

No, your explanation is not at all reasonable and it doesn't constitute evidence.

You say, "The notion of an infinite being is illogical in it's own." Yes, it is. So how does your explanation earn the title of "reasonable" when it is based on what you call illogic (check the dictionary for the root word of reasonable)?

You also write, "But has time always existed?" Time only exists in the sense that men have created the concept of time to add order to our lives. It is a convenient concept for us which - for some reason - seems to move forward as do our own lives. Why do you think that is?

You write: "So it all boils down to the BIG question. What created God? The only logical explanation for that is that God does not exist in time but is Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal."

No, the MOST LOGICAL explanation is that god doesn't exist at all. In fact, the BIG questions are much bigger than the concept of god.

But again, your definition of god as "[the] Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal" really says nothing that would make a case for any god that man has ever come up with, including Yahweh. Even if I were to stipulate your concept (which I won't), there's nothing in there that says your particular god is the right god. After all, it's possible that the explanation for the Big Bang may end up being, "and then, nothingness farted."

Finally, I don't mean this to sound mean, but there are no "specifics" in your version of an infinite regression. I would point you to Einstein's theories of relativity and special relativity for your answers, especially concerning gravitational time dilation.

Thanks for the chat.

Mr. Mark,

No, not rude at all. Very pleasant and so so appreciative that someone can finally have an intellectual debate.

Yes, you are right about God. The notion of an infinite being is illogical in it's own. I find that God is incomprehensible by nature but at the same time the only plausible answer for logical absolutes. As I've stated that a logical absolute is that something cannot bring itself into existence OF COURSE does not apply to the notion of an infinite being, a Creator of time itself, no matter how illogical the position may be to you, I find it to be the only way that absolute logic can exist. Of course I've heard the argument about what brought God into existence and I'm sure you've heard the same response that God has always existed. But has time always existed? Of course the only way to know that is to find convincing evidence that matter is infinite which is illogical as well. Therefore a Creator of matter is the only plausible answer for me as well. Like I said, it's evidence for me, maybe not you. But I hope you can agree that it is reasonable evidence.

So it all boils down to the BIG question. What created God? The only logical explanation for that is that God does not exist in time but is Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal. An eternal being that exists outside of the laws of logic is the only explanation for logical absolutes to exist. If God is eternal then the word "eternal" does not apply to the logical absolute statement that "something cannot bring itself into existence" because that pre-supposes a time for creation. Something "eternal" cannot be subject to time.

So, yes it is an infinite regression argument, but it deals with specifics, such as conceptual realities that exist in an absolute sense. Things that exist absolutely but not in the context of scientific, verifiable matter.

I want to ask again. How do you account for logical absolutes to exist in a naturalistic worldview? I'm hoping you can deal with the subject of absolute logic for now. I know about Big Bang and all that. But Big Bang does not solve where absolute logic came from because Big Bang is subject to the confinement of scientific knowledge or theory in which absolute logic cannot be verified...however we have absolute knowledge that absolute logic exists, correct? So please again, how can a naturalistic worldview account for the existence of absolute logic.

Thanks Mr.Mark

David -

Thanks for your explanation which amounts to your version of an infinite regression. The short version of an infinite regression based on what you wrote above is this: if something (you could have said "anything") cannot bring itself into existence, then how did God come into existence?

In other words, who or what created god?

Your argument is therefore hoisted on its own petard, so to speak.

Based on your previous writings in this thread, I have a feeling that you will have an answer for me, and that answer will be what you have stated before, "but God is different." But, you see, using YOUR OWN LOGIC, God cannot be different. The only hope for your argument is to say that "the rules of logic don't apply to God because he is God"...at which point the supposed "logic" of your Points #1 & #2 above cease to support your argument for God's existence.

Because of this, you can't even posit that your particular definition of God is whoever or whatever happens to be the first step before logic reared its head and illogic ruled everything else. Besides, we already have an explanation for that, and it's called the Big Bang, ie: we have a pretty good idea of when and how the Big Bang occurred, but we still have no idea of what happened before then, even though multiple hypotheses exist for that as well.

So, your evidence is an "infinite regression" that stops being infinite at whatever point one wishes to inject a concept of god into the regression...until we ask who created god.

Got it.

BTW - your explanation works the other way as well. Try this test: tell me the absolute highest number that exists. The fallacy to this argument is what I call the "plus one" argument. In other word, you name the absolute highest number that exists and I'll add one to it.

Thanks again.

I hope that my explanation wasn't too rude.

Ouch, So harsh!!

I'm not playing any games here fellas. I was just hoping that we can agree on a few things first before I present what evidence I have that is satisfactory for me. No need to be mean guys, I'm just trying to establish a few things first.

Ok, I guess I will ASSUME a few things first. Sound better? First I will assume from what I've read from both you Mr. Mark and you Duckphup that you both are intellectually sound and can understand what I am presenting to you. Unfortunately that did not bode too well on the other post. I was just called names and presented will a bunch of illogical statements. I assume that you both are logically sound and will understand what I'm trying to portray to you. Again, this is evidence for God, that may or may not suit your epistomological needs, but for me it gives me more the reason to believe in God.

Here goes......drum roll please.....ooooo...so nervous....

:)

Ok, I will assume that you agree with me that logic exists. I asked if you agree with me that there are logical absolutes. I will give you two logical absolutes to prove my point and ASSUME again that you agree that they are logical absolutes.

1. Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. This is a logical absolute, correct?

2. Something cannot bring itself into existence. The illogic in that is that it would have to exist beforehand to be able to bring itself into existence therefore the statement is illogical and deeming itself an absolute logical statement that something cannot bring itself into existence.

Hope you all are with me so far. Deep breaths everyone...

So, since logic exists and absolute logic exists how does it exist in a purely naturalistic worldview without the existence of God? So how can logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, exist? They cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed nor captured, but yet they exist.

My conclusion is that they logically must exist in the mind of an absolute being (God, if you will) because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe. And since logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent being. To this I also add that if there is a an absolute God with an absolute mind, then he is the standard of all things as well as morals. Therefore I can conclude that morals, being conceptual as well, are absolute too. I know morals is a different subject that if you would like we can later talk about, but right now in this discussion, I'm wondering if you can give me evidence on how absolute logic can exist in a purely physical universe.

Whew...hope you got that. So just a reminder fellas, let's play nice, ok? No name calling and sarcastic offenses please. It's a discussion ruiner and it ended a discussion on another post with someone I was talking to because of the disrespect. I will give you the upmost respect at all times as you deserve it more than I do. I do enjoy these intellectual conversations but of course only if we can be civil. No matter the outcome, I love you all and wish you the best.

Good day and I'll check up on ya later.

David

Dear Duckphup -

Thanks for the kind comments.

If I might offer a metaphor:

You and I are both witnesses to the religious version of the HMS Titanic. We know the ship is sinking and that its loss is inevitable, and that those who wish to survive with their logic, rationality and humanity in hand better get to the lifeboat with the name "reality" painted on its side.

The passengers on that Titanic are the religionists on this blog. I tend to meet them just after the ship has hit the iceberg. One has time to wonder what happened. Something isn't right. Let's discuss what may have happened and what options are available.

On the other hand, you meet them at the point where there's one lifeboat remaining and Leonardo & Kate are riding the liner into the deep. Yours is a "cut the BS and get in the lifeboat or you're dead" approach to divesting them of their religious beliefs. Mine is a bit more leisurely.

Whatever approach one takes, I can't help but feel that many of the religious who participate on this blog walk away with a smidgen of doubt in their minds about what they've been told and not told about their faith, about the piss-poor arguments for god's existence they've had shoved down their throats for years and to realize that there are many, many people in this country and world for whom their fantasies hold no reward nor terror.

That's all to the good, methinks, for while religious belief often starts with some grand "miracle" of conversion, non-belief often arises from those tiny seeds of doubt that get planted in the mind and grow into something over time. It's evolutionary.

Good chatting.

Sorry... last sentence should say 'venue'... not 'venus'. I guess the spirit-world is trying to inform me that it is again time to go out in the back yard and sacrifice a goat to 'Typos'... Greek god of the keyboard. Is the moon still full?

Mr. Mark... clearly, your patience exceeds my own by a remarkable degree... I believe we have exchanged notes on that before. I have found, over the years, that repeated and prolonged exposure to gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity... besides tending to make me want to puke... have had an abrasive, sand-paper-like effect on my ability to tolerate those dubious 'qualities'. I congratulate you on your ability to persevere with grace. My own grace has become nearly exhausted. I can still summon it if I have to... but here, in this venus, I think it is best to preserve what little I have left.

Dear David -

You said you have evidence to show that god exists, present your evidence. I'll answer no more questions before you respond to the challenge you set out yourself.

As Duckphup pointed out above, you're moving the goal posts with this game you're playing. If there's evidence of god you should be able to put it forward without trying to rope me into an answer that you will use in an attempt to back me into some fallacious "truth" that you'll wrap in some addition fallacies.

REAL evidence for god must exist independent of whatever I or you or the mailman thinks about anything. I don't need to ask what you think of the Big Bang to present evidence that it occurred, do I?

Your reply to my accepting your offer smacks of the street magician who claims that he can really make things disappear...but first, he'll need everybody to turn around, close their eyes and count to 10. It's a classic bait and switch.

Have on with it, man. Present your "evidence" - or desert the field.

David wrote (to Mr. Mark): :To further my evidence I will need to ask you a few questions. First, does logic exist? And are there logical absolutes? For example would you say that something can exist and not exist at the same time. If no, then that is a logical absolute right?"

Mr. Mark... please excuse me for butting in... but this sort of nonsense really gets my knickers in a knot.

David... that's a bunch of crap. What are you doing? Playing "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours?"

You are playing the game of the informal fallacy 'moving the goalpost'... except that you are trying to get a sense of where you should set up the goalpost in advance, so that you can set up your OTHER logical fallacies in advance, and reduce the risk of getting caught moving the goalposts later on, once 'play' has begun.

It is plain for everyone to see that 'sophistry' is the only arrow that you've got in your quiver. If you've got something to say... why don't you just bloody-well say it?

Hi Mr. Mark,

No I never said I will give proof for God's existence, merely evidence. If I had proof then I wouldn't have faith it would be knowledge. In all honesty I do not want absolute knowledge that God exists based on the fact that that would take away the free love I have for Him. Only by faith can I love God truly, but that's besides the point so let me present some evidence that is satisfactory to me. I'm actually having this same conversation with someone else on another post, so we'll see how it ends up. Here goes. To further my evidence I will need to ask you a few questions.

First, does logic exist? And are there logical absolutes?

For example would you say that something can exist and not exist at the same time. If no, then that is a logical absolute right?

From another thread:

Victoria said,

‘to me it beggars the question, well, if atheism is so intellectually superior, what alternatives, social solutions etc have they come up with?’

Speaking for myself, I don’t claim to be intellectually superior, and don’t think others have said that either.

As for social solutions, atheists are no better at this than anyone else. But I will offer a few suggestions at the risk of setting myself up for attack:

1. Get serious about energy independence from Mid East oil. This is the root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

2. Get the Neo-Con Israeli lobbyists’ hands off the strings of power in our government. This is the 2nd root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

3. Can you imagine how much better would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on Palestine and Iraq on infrastructure and alternate energy sources instead?

4. Get control of our worldwide population growth (I can hear the howls already). We are already overpopulated by about a factor of two.

I’m sure I can think of more, but that should be enough for now.

Sorry, David, But god is NOT different. The evidence for his existence is on par with that for unicorns, fairies and succubi.

You say you can prove his existence without using the Bible (argument from authority) or science (argument from evidence - it's a given you can't do this). OK, I'm game.

Present your evidence. I'm sure on of us will chime in to let you know which discredited argument you're using (ontological or a priori, personal experience, some version of Bayes' Theorum - probably that of Stephen Unwin , the argument from beauty, a misunderstanding of the anthropic principle, another version of something Pascal uttered, the god-of-the-gaps chimera, or the old 747 delusion).

OR, perhaps something new and inventive.

Thanks for the dialogue. I look forward to your proof.

Anthony - I agree wholeheartedly. Verbalizing is tedious and lots or work ... I'd personally prefer using the Vulcan Mind Meld like I ordinarily do, but unfortunately it's a 'hands-on' kind of thing. Computers are such low technology anyway......

Gerry, I agree to a point, but atheist and agnosticism aren't different ends of a sliding scale. I can understand why people who place the odds near to 50/50 might choose to use the word agnostic instead of atheist, but they do so based on a misuse of the word atheist and they are still an atheist. The person who places the odds at .000000001% but doesn't claim to "know" is still an agnostic.

If a majority of people didn't wrongly believe that atheism is a claim of knowledge I wouldn't feel compelled to keep arguing the point with people, but that misconception is largely caused by people using the word agnostic as if it represented something other than atheism, and that's a misuse of the word.

Chip,

I think we could make a difference between a logical impossibility (a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time). We cannot logically assert either position. In this sense we are agnostics.

But then, there is the case when something whose probability tends toward zero, like Russell's teapot - or a god, in my opinion. The probability is as small as to be negligible. In this sense we are atheists.

Davis wrote (October 3, 2007 3:25 AM): "David: "I still believe atheism is a faith."

You seem to be having a REALLY hard time with this simple concept... so I'm going to try to make this as easy as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

A 'theist' BELIEVES that deities EXIST... in particular, the kind of deity that creates things and then, from time-to-time, fiddles with his 'creation'. In Latin, the letter 'a' negates what it is stuck in front of... so 'atheist' specifically means 'NOT a theist'... i.e., does NOT 'believe' that god(s) exist. Now here is where it gets really tricky... because it requires that you have the intellectual chops to be able to discern that there is a HUGE difference between NOT believing that gods exist... and BELIEVING that god's DO NOT exist. The difference is huge both qualitatively and with respect to its implications.

In general, atheists do not 'believe' simply because the reasons or so-called 'evidence' purported to support the idea that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) 'exist' are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or sustain a mental state of 'belief'. The notion that there is some kind of 'choice' involved in this seems silly to me. One does not 'choose' NOT to believe.

Let me try to explain this in another way. You guys come around here telling fantastic stories about this wonderful, loving, capricious, vengeful, murderous, genocidal, caring, compassionate, mass-murdering, forgiving, jealous... loving... did I already say loving?... supernatural entity who poofed the universe into existence, fabricated humans from a dust bunny and a rib... while we KNOW (because the evidence tells us) that 6,000 years ago... here in the REAL universe... just outside of the 'gates' of the Garden where he was doing all this, the Mesopotamians were making beer. And you have no credible evidence... none... at all... zilch... nada. And your story is suspiciously similar to OTHER, older stories which even YOU acknowledge to be myths. You tell us that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

OK... here's the thing... we DON'T BELIEVE YOUR STORY. That's it... that's what an 'atheist' is. Somebody who DOESN'T BELIEVE your story, and does not believe OTHER stories which are essentially just variations of the same thing... invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairies.

Simple, huh?

The reasons and evidence that you present, for WHY I should believe your story are either 'good', or 'NOT good'. If they're NOT good, then my 'bullsh*t alarm' goes off. One does not CHOOSE to have one's bullsh*t alarm go off... it just goes off.

So... your story makes my bullsh*t alarm go off... and that means that I think your story is bullsh*t. I do not have to PROVE it is bullsh*t... I don't have to BELIEVE that it's bullsh*t... I don't have to have FAITH that it is bullsh*t... I just have to THINK that it is bullsh*t. In other words, I am simply NOT IMPRESSED with your bullsh*t story.

In common parlance, that makes me an 'atheist'... simply because I am not gullible and droolingly stupid enough to 'believe' such outlandish bullsh*t.

Personally, I just think that it just makes me 'sane'... and that no other labels beyond that need be applied.

Are you still with me here?... good... so... by YOUR way of 'thinking' (notice the absence of the word 'logic'), if you came around telling us that there is a herd of invisible, magical pink unicorns that prances around in your back yard under the light of a full moon... but you had no proof, or credible evidence... I just have to take this on 'faith'... I just have to 'believe'... and I was not persuaded by your arguments... I DECLINED to 'believe'... that would make me 'religious'... a 'believer' in the 'no pink unicorns in your back yard' cult... someone who had 'faith' that such creatures did not exist... an 'aunicornist'.

I don't think so. I think that it would just be an indication that I might actually be sane. Just like the fact that I don't believe your god story is an indication that I might actually be sane.

All that you demonstrate here is that along with being baffled by the simple concept of 'NOT believing' in something, you are also unable to distinguish between facts and delusions. You are unable to discern the qualitative differences in the meaning of words like 'faith', as they are dictated by the context of the discourse. How do I know this? You have just TOLD us... by the quality and content of your assertions and your questions... you have TOLD us.

Religious people seem to not have been blessed with the ABILITY to make critical distinctions. For example, probably 95 out of 100 christians will tell you that having 'faith' that your mate is not screwing around on you, having 'faith' that the chair you are sitting in is not going to collapse, and having 'faith' that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) EXIST pretty-much amount to the same thing. They are simply incapable of discerning the context-based qualitative differences in the meaning of 'faith'... and they are not capable of appreciating the implications of those differences. And really, the differences are not subtle AT ALL... to the critical thinker. To the NON-critical thinker, though... well, the phrase 'oblivious to the obvious' comes to mind.

In other words, it does not matter HOW precisely we try to define terms or draw our distinctions, if the people we are trying to converse with are incapable of making those kinds of distinctions. The problem has NOTHING to do with distinctions and definitions... it has to do with the fact that (my unscientific estimate) less than around 10% of the population of the USA possesses critical thinking skills.

Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief'... or a 'religion'... or 'faith'... ONLY in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'. In other words... it CAN'T.

Are you getting it yet?

In fact, atheists ARE open to the idea that 'gods' exist; intellectual honesty REQUIRES that. All we need is some compelling evidence. But mythology isn't evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence. A self-referential document with no contemporaneous external corroboration is not evidence... by THOSE standards, we would be obliged to conclude that 'Moby Dick' is 'true'. So, while we are OPEN to the idea that god(s) exist(s)... the idea does not carry much weight with sane, rational people... the ones who recognize that all the CREDIBLE evidence points to a universe that arose from simple beginnings... that complexity arises from simplicity, over time, as a consequence of the natural interactions of matter and energy. You know... the REAL universe is really a much more interesting, exciting and amazing place than the petty terrarium-universe that 'god' created in Genesis. In other words, at this point in our scientific quest for knowledge, the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairy hypothesis' does NOT seem to be necessary.

It is 'belief' itself that is the problem. Belief has no 'truth' value. Belief is not 'knowledge'... it is the ILLUSION of knowledge... which happens to pretty much correspond with the definition of 'delusion'.

Then there is that pesky 'burden of proof' thing.

There is no such thing as an 'atheist view'... or 'atheist beliefs' or anything like that. Again... we just don't believe your story. That is what defines an atheist... and that is ALL that defines an atheist. Apart from that, atheists are all over the map... and this accounts for why atheists can't seem to get themselves effectively organized (yet). It has been suggested that getting atheists organized is like "... trying to herd cats."

But let's pretend, for a moment, that there IS an 'atheist view'... and say that the 'view' is simply the recognition that you cannot meet your 'burden of proof'. If you were to manage to do THAT, then the atheist 'view' would change in a heartbeat. You've heard of 'burden of proof'... right? Well... just in case... here's what that means. If YOU want ME to believe YOUR story, then it is UP TO YOU to present your story to me in such a way that my bullsh*t alarm does NOT go off... and THAT means that you must accompany your story with credible, compelling evidence... WHICH, by the way, nobody has been able to do for nearly 2,000 years... so I'm not gonna be holding my breath, waiting for that to happen.

Here's WHY you don't understand...

* You cannot differentiate between knowledge and the ILLUSION of knowledge.

* You cannot make distinctions relating to the qualitative difference in the meaning of words, based on 'context', and thus cannot appreciate the difference in the implications of such distinctions. The fact that these kinds of distinctions are NOT subtle to the perception of a rational, critically-thinking person should ALARM you.

* You cannot determine what qualifies as evidence.

* You think that things are 'facts' that are NOT facts.

* You are not 'intellectually honest'... i.e., willing to question and doubt your own assumptions.

'Faith' (magical, wishful thinking) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence'.

Faith-based 'belief' (the internalized certainty that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to vital aspects of existence and reality) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'... in fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge.

Faith + belief ---> Self-deception, self-delusion and willful ignorance.

'Belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

David "So I still believe atheism in an absolute sense is illogical. I believe agnosticism is the only logical position to hold if you hold a naturalistic worldview, therefore leaving atheism as a faith."

Agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Atheists don't claim to know there is no god, they simply don't believe one exists. As you rightly stated in your reply to the unicorns example, the only way to prove a negative is by being omniscient. Atheism is not a claim of omniscience. It's simply a lack of belief. It is, for the vast majority of atheists, an agnostic position. A useful distinction to make is that atheist describes "what" and agnostic describes "why." The only atheists that are not agnostics are those that claim to know there is no god. You're correct that that isn't a logical position, which is probably why I've never met an atheist who holds it.

Good Daniel,

I'm glad that we are able to reach a sort of meeting of the minds. I find that quite rare on these boards.

Rick

As a Christian, I have to say that I agree alot with you. You may be suprised, because many people assoicate "Christianity" with right-wing-born-again-Christian-evangelicals. They have very big and loud mouths and get all the press. But I am not one of them; I am just a "plain" Christian. As far as my faith and belief go, I have more in common with Mother Teresa than with them.

I agree with you, it is kinda scary. I also have a tip for you: most religious fantatics have a great deal of doubt, which they work feverishly to suppress, instead of allowing themselves to experience. That is what makes them so testy. So, don't think too bad of them.

From another thread:

Hi Victoria,

You said:

‘actually im not even one tiny bit interested in a definition of atheism- that seems elementary- but what do atheists believe in a more existential sense.’

Not speaking for all atheists of course, just for myself, existentially, I don’t have a clue what we are doing here if that’s what you mean, and neither does anyone else. Kind of scary isn’t it. I just want to get up in the morning, go to work, have three squares a day, enjoy life with my loved ones, etc, etc, etc...

Whether there is a God or not, or whether there is divine moral code or not, after you have passedd those decisions, the central point of Christianity is how to live on earth, and how to regard your fellow man. Alot of Christians are lost, on this point, and fail.

We know very little; even the words which we use to discuss these things are coarse and inadequate tools, from which to build meaning.

In order to be a good Christian, Christians need to get off of this anti-atheistic crusade, which is totally and completely irrelevant to the pursuit of a Christian life. If a person does not believe in God, then let them be. A persistent but futile insistence on your point of view over all others merely indicates an inner turmoil and uncertainty, and undermines your claims of being Christian.

Many people who post here on the "side" of Christianity are not very dedicated Christians. It takes alot more than bashing atheists on a computer website.

For a group of people who say they don't believe in something you sure do spend an enormous amount of time talking about what doesn't supposedly exist.

From another thread:

Prof. Stone:

I would also ask believers this question: "if someone did prove to you today that God did not exist, would you behave any differently? Would you start to mug old ladies in the street? Would you walk along the corridor and shoot the colleague you have hated for the last 10 years? Would you begin a string of affairs with other men/women?" I think the answer would be no. There is something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behaviour, and what is excessive or inappropriate. And it does not depend on reward or fear.

October 3, 2007 2:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 3, 2007 02:32
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick:

Bravo Prof. Stone,

Well done. Of course the believers will say that ‘something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behavior, and what is excessive or inappropriate’ was placed there by God and is proof of God. Atheists (like me) will say that it was placed there by evolution.

I believe that the Golden Rule is the driving force of evolution’s law of natural selection at the higher levels of development that is responsible for that ‘something in the human psyche’. The cave man learned early on that if he did harm to his neighbor, his neighbor was likely to do harm to him in return.

October 3, 2007 7:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments

ATHEISM,had, has its place,its chapter in human development,as being much respected, it having added much to the whole in human development. However,it be a chapter in an ongoing story,its vital the atheist,( not )as christian get stuck in a chapter of human development,lost in folly of singing self praise.Those that having rightly opposed christian folly,be in danger of making same error,gettting too comfortable in a chapter, as be an old chair,unwilling to move on,yet must. Let us learn from christian folly,not repeating a an familiar mistake,we be facing new frontiers,in Spiritual Development,turning to a new chapter in human development,be material as spiritual.Yet it the spiritual that some thrive,turning to it as moth to flame,in such prepare a path that others may follow.SEEKING THE HOLY GRAIL,THAT ONE DRINK, QUENCHING THIRST,one starting journey as master, only becoming the most humbled of servants. .

"But God is different". That is the huge umbrella you use starting your argument to prove that God is different. Circular, no matter around how many additional decorative curves you drive it.
Since god is different, he is different. With or without the bible. It comes down to the same "reasoning".

Chip,

You are absolutely right. That is illogical and evidently I'm going against my own beliefs of truth not being relative. Of course us religious folks believe in absolute truths, so assigning a specific ratio to the truth that God does or does not exist is illogical. Thanks for the catch.

Mr. Mark,

I still believe atheism is a faith. I'll answer what you asked me and explain why and give a logical reason for doing so.

"Here's an easy test for you: do you, David, have faith that unicorns exist in the world today and that they possess magical powers? If not, does it require faith on your part to believe unicorns don't exist? If it requires faith on your part to not believe unicorns exist, then what, exactly, does that faith entail?"

I have faith that unicorns do NOT exist in the universe (not just the world). I cannot say I know for sure in an absolute sense because that would require me to have infinite knowledge of this whole universe. The same goes for you. You cannot make an absolute statement that God does not exist without pre-supposing infinite knowledge. And if you do pre-suppose infinite knowledge then you are positing an infinite being which is exactly what you are trying to deny, therefore that would be illogical. I have faith in God but cannot measure Him, see Him, put Him in a test tube, weigh Him. But I do have evidence that I find is substantial for me. I will be glad to share that with you if you like. But with unicorns with magical powers, I find no evidence to conclude that they exist, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Maybe they do on some distant planet, who knows? So I have faith they do not exist based on the evidence. But God is different and if you would like, I can give you an example of evidence that is substantial to me, not even using a Bible.....how 'bout that?? And by the way, it has nothing to do with science either...how 'bout that agian? :) I know we are all sick of the science debate and origin of life debate. So I'm not saying that that is evidence for me, (even though it partially is) I am talking about a different kind of evidence.

So I still believe atheism in an absolute sense is illogical. I believe agnosticism is the only logical position to hold if you hold a naturalistic worldview, therefore leaving atheism as a faith. Is that agreeable or do you have a response? Keep in mind, many "atheists" these days are resorting to taking on the title agnostic/atheist for this very purpose of not wanting to be labeled as illogical by means of the same argument I have proposed. I don't mean any offense by it whatsoever, and your beliefs are no different, just labeled different, at least logically. Have a good evening. I hope to hear from you tomorrow.

David, to add to what Mr. Mark said... Going by your logic there would have to be a 50/50 chance that any claim for which there's no supporting evidence is true. You're equating lack of proof with proof and assigning them equal weight, and that's a rather silly thing to do. For example, if I claim that the milk in my refrigerator is sentient and can recite all the works of Shakespeare from memory, but in a voice beyond our ability to hear or measure, I can't give you any evidence that it's true, and you can't give any evidence that it's not. Do you think there's a 50/50 chance that the milk in my fridge is reciting Hamlet?

David writes:

"believing in God is a faith and not believing in God is a faith as well."

I'm sorry, David, but no matter how often you religionists say that atheism is a faith it isn't. It is non-belief.

Here's an easy test for you: do you, David, have faith that unicorns exist in the world today and that they possess magical powers? If not, does it require faith on your part to believe unicorns don't exist? If it requires faith on your part to not believe unicorns exist, then what, exactly, does that faith entail?

Awaiting your response.

One sees the power of ( god ) everywhere in the material...(the material realm, which being the essence of creation diluted,the human form be as part of the material...yet through the human form brain as heart,be the design that such we grow be as given understanding as experience,that we may then understand experience the very (essence of creation)....we simply are in the inital stages of grasping the purpose of life,etc,etc, etc,it be as our understanding experience grows we then able see why things had to be as they were as for individual as its nations....it be important in our development that understanding as experience remain balanced,understanding as lacking balance in experience,the result, a raving lunatic.When experience goes beyond understanding then it be the prospect of an lunatic.Hence the unreveiling that we are in a state to cope with it.Putting it another way, example... if you are going to jump out of a plane it helps your survival greatly not forgetting your parachute...Hence it be balanced understanding as experience,being the parachute in Spiritual Development... .. .

Rick,

Both are a faith position, you are correct. So when Hitchens and Co. say that me, a believer, has no reason and is irrational, then is that the truth? Especially in light of it being "50/50"? Wouldn't that make us both irrational and unreasonable? Or do we both have reason? I like the latter. But I feel that there are certain things in life that are absolutes that could not come from a purely naturalistic worldview. My only explanation for these absolutes could be from the mind of an absolute being, namely God. But maybe we'll get into that another time.

Thanks for the comments Rick.

I come down on the Atheist/Agnostic side. The odds are 50/50, either an infinite and eternal god exists, who creates and destroys universes to pass the time; or the universe itself is infinite and eternal, having always been here and always will be here, no creator required. Yea verily!

What do you think? There is absolutely no evidence to support either conclusion.

I feel ya Daniel. Of course dialogue from both sides hasn't been very "nice" I should say.

Of course, since believing in God is a faith and not believing in God is a faith as well, then we are all irrational idiots, no matter what you believe.

It feels good to be a part of this human race and we are all equally knuckleheaded....especially Bernie Bee....yeah buddy YOU....put that is ye pipeth and smoketh that! Just kidding man. Luv ya.

And who needs a petri dish to create life when
you've got a guy, a gal, soft music and a bottle of your best red?? .... that's how it used to be done before God got involved.

I have not looked at this thread since Friday. Wow, it has really devolved since then.

After reading Vinnie's several comments, I can only so, "fine, but what's your point?"

And here is MY comment:

When I read Duckphup's comments, I believe in Creaation; but when I read Vinnie's comments, I believe in Evolution.

Too true Terry! To be afflicted by religion to the degree we observe in so many, even here in the 21st century, is disquieting to say the least!

AS far as it goes though I'd say it is close run thing who is the craziest; Vinnie or Moody!

And hey Vinnie you keep sneerin' at us non-believers because of man's inability to produce life from inanimate matter when it is being done times without number everyday with millions participating!

Haven't ye heard o' transubstantiation? Anyways, if ye don't believe a wee bit o' starch and a goblet o' wine can be turned intae the actual flesh 'n blood and the implications that has for participants, then accordin' tae Pope Benny you ain't a Christian!
So put that in yer pipe 'n smoke it!

Bernie Bee - indeed....but you'll notice Moody's Muslim rant is exceeded by a margin of about
20-1 if you care to count all the Christian rants on just this particular blog thread.

What's the difference??

Moody,

You mentioned John 14 and claim by muslim scholars that Jesus was talking about mohammed. But of course it's taken out of context. Look at the following verse please...

17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you.

Was mohammed seen? Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, Moody. The third person in the Trinity of God. I'm sorry but they lied to you, my friend. If muslim scholars came up with this from John 14, I must say they are not very educated in their scholarship and quite decietful to leave out the following verses especially with the only excuse that early Christians changed the Bible. 24,000 NT documents are in possesion as of today and can verify that that is a lie.

I want you to know as well that the Book of Revelation talks about your Mahdi. Your Mahdi is our anti-Christ. A false prophet will precede the anti-Christ and confirm the worship of the anti-Christ. In your texts it is Jesus (false Jesus to us) that will return and claim to not be God but give glory to another, the Mahdi.The Mahdi will rule the world and kill all non-muslims, correct? The Book of Revelation talks about this 500 years before Mohammed ever existed. The only difference being that the anti-Christ written about in the Bible is evil, but the Mahdi in Islam is good, a saviour of sorts. Do you see yet? Mohammed writes about the same events 500 years after it was already written about except he changes what is evil to good! Do I believe the former or latter? It would seem the latter written by mohammed was a rip off of the former with the exception of making the evil out to be good, no?

May Jesus guide all to the truth which is Him, the one and only Lord and Saviour. Amen. I pray for that for you too Moody.

How scary Moody's rant is as an example of a human mind dislocated by the insanity of religion!
And to think there are millions on the loose suffering from similarly damaged minds!
What a frightful world this is!

I'm coming into this thread late but want to thank Susan Jacoby for moving the conversation forward. She recognizes that there is in fact a meaningful difference between fundamentalist and "moderate" religion. I would argue with her about many things, but I'm glad for this area of agreement.

Ms. Jacoby
Messrs.Hitchens, Harris and you are wrong, By a country mile.
Where they employ “Religion” and you supplement “fundamentalist” the keyword should in all honesty be MAN.

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell.
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read my below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

Neal, thanks, and to anyone else who gave me a nod, or engaged and sparred with me. I too am saddened when a really good thread winds down, but at least we know there'll be more good ones to look forward to. Lots of excellent, intelligent, spirited (and often funny) debate on this forum.

Thank you, Susan Jacoby. Anyone pricking religion has my admiration, especially if its origins in tribalism and ignorance are mentioned in one sentence. Going beyond your thesis, roots of Christianity are found in solar worship and probably in the dimly remembered practice of child sacrifice. Further, a non-historic Jesus Christ hypothesis best fits the puzzle of missing documentation from the time during which he supposedly lived.

Concepts Are Not a Reality - George couldn't have said it better....thinking is the problem, not the solution. Who would believe it??

Duckphup:

Thanks for the input re: "Maria". Thanks also to you, Mr. Mark, Chip and others, of all persuasions, for your participations in this forum. Though I spend much of my time rereading what's been written and referenced, I'm always stimulated by the exchange and disappointed when a good thread dies.

Thank you, Susan Jacoby.

God is a concept. The only way to experience true reality is to experience life without concepts.
As George Harrison wrote:

Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream,
It is not dying, it is not dying

Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
It is shining, it is shining.

That you may see the meaning of within
It is being, it is being

Love is all and love is everyone
It is knowing, it is knowing

Let ignorance and hate claim all the dead
It is believing, it is believing

But listen to the colour of your dreams
It is not leaving, it is not leaving

Or play the game "Existence" to the end
Of the beginning, of the beginning

Vinnie - please don't let me down. I'm patiently waiting for the answer to this: "Why do you suppose God waited so long to allow humans to harness electricity and develop antibiotics? And why hasn’t he updated the one set of instructions he gave us over 2,000 years ago?

David -

Thanks for the civil discourse. I also enjoyed our exchange.

We may never learn the transitional steps involved in life getting its start here on Earth. At best, we'll have some pretty convincing theories that have the strength of science behind them.

I guess the point of my citing Miller to Vinnie was a simple counter to his creationist/poof, there's an elephant view of the world. MU gives a plausible explanation for life's "origins." It comes down to what one considers to be "the origins." Is a fetus to be considered a "human being" at the moment of conception (à la the Xian fundies) or is a fetus only a "potential life" until the baby's head emerges from the birth canal (à la Jewish law)? Is the "origin of life" for that baby the act of procreation or the precursers for life that reside respectively in the male & female awaiting combination (sperm & egg)?

To our friend Vinnie, it's all strawmen and moving goal posts, so there's never an answer.

Again, good chat.

Just for your info, I'm far from a scientist, but science does intrigue me. I've done a little homework I guess you can say. Coincidentally enough I read that same article you posted. I do hope that can be some information to benefit mankind. I'm sure it will.

I guess you are right, we do agree more than I thought. I do think my point in all this was simpler than initially expected though. Maybe my assumptions were wrong or maybe I just mis-interpreted when you directed this experiment at Vinny for some proof on the non-living to living matter issue. I'm sure we can both agree that proof is still far away. Sure, progress has been made. A little trial and error and then some and quite possibly one day the answer may come. Maybe not. I find it statistically more plausible that I will win the lottery every week for the next 20 years, but hey, even that's a possibility, right?

Thanks for the discussion Mr. Mark. I do appreciate the exchange of ideas and of course new knowledge is great knowledge and the more we have the better we can be. If I can learn something from you whether in the sciences or in a philosophy of life, I do appreciate it and of course hope for a nicer exchange in dialogue than what seems to occur so frequently on here. THAT GOES FOR YOU TOO VINNY!

Good day to you.

David -

Thanks again for your comments.

I think we agree on more here than you let on. Again, no one can prove definitively that the MU atmosphere was "wrong" or "off." But science wouldn't be science if it insisted that MU was gospel and couldn't be challenged or revised or tossed aside altogether.

My point is that the MU call on the field is under review, but it has yet to have been reversed. Perhaps a new camera angle will give us a better idea some day. I don't know if you heard, but last week, scientists at ASU released a study that posits that oxygen was present in Earth's atmosphere 50 to 100-million years earlier than previously believed (see here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927145226.htm ).

In short, nothing has been "proven" or disproven here. The jury is out and new evidence is constantly flooding in.

And, yes, I am aware of the "hard part," but that's not the part MU was all about. You'll agree with that, won't you?

Mr. Mark,

Thanks for the insight. I do agree and disagree at some point. Not for theological reasons but for logical reasons. Yes amino acids were created. But the electricity was off. The chemicals used were off. Metaphorically speaking, Miller used too much sugar in his recipe and the cookies seemed sweeter than they really are. Too bad the recipe called for less sugar and cooking time. Now he has a cake when he was looking for cookies.

I know what science is used for Mark. I'm not asking that Miller or any scientist create an elephant in a lab from non-living matter. These are the facts. If you choose to disagree with them, then go ahead. He made amino acids from a lab that was later found to be inconsistent with the earth's early atmosphere. Even so, he made amino acids. Great! Amino acids are not living matter. Building blocks yes! But not living. There are many other factors in the creation of a living cell. L and D seperation, a repetitive creation of many more amino acids and a nucleus. Ok amino acids were created. But that would be the easy part. (I know that is debateable), but the hard part is yet to come. I'm sure you are aware of the hard part, right? But anyway, my point being is that you cited the Miller/Urey experiment to be a possibility for an answer of origin of life. With a tainted atmosphere and the creation of many more amino acids necessary, along with the seperation of the necessary L's and D's, I would say that is no answer at all. What the evidence is telling me is that science is not even close. And really, to use the Miller/Urey experiment as proof of the possibility of an answer to the origin of life is really no proof at all. Sorry, kid, maybe in a couple of decades you'll have an answer. Maybe not. Till then, us ignorant Christians will still be here. :)

Take care

Dear David -

Thanks for your comment on Miller/Urey.

You are simply reiterating what I said in my last post on the subject, that 1) the atmospheric conditions set up for the experiment were - at the time - thought to be very close to early Earth conditions, but that that atmospheric model is now questioned by some, and 2) that Miller's use of a constant electrical current within that atmosphere may not have represented lightening strikes on early Earth which were probably intermittent and not constant.

The experiments created 2% amino acids. Yes - they are the building blocks of life, ie: precursers. As I said, the important fact is that the amino acids were created AT ALL.

To the best of our knowledge, life needs certain elements to get started. Miller/Urey took gases and by passing electricity through an atmosphere created amino acids, ie: the building blocks of life. The intellectually challenged seem to want a Biblical result from the experiment for it to be valid, ie: if the Miller/Urey experiment didn't create a fully developed elephant, then it didn't create life, ergo the experiment was a failure. I sometimes get the idea that for the ID-ists, "life" means animal life, not trees or bugs or microbes, at least when they phrase their assaults on science in infantile terms as does our friend Vinnie.

Such a fully formed result is what Biblical creationism demands. That is NOT what science demands or expects. The simple fact is that elephants evolved over billions of years, probably starting with some amino acids that generated proteins. That's the scientific theory. Elephants weren't created in a "poof." which is the religious illusion.

Miller/Urey was NOT intended to explain how life developed from A to Z. It tried to provide a PLAUSIBLE explanation for step B or maybe C. Any scientist realizes that Miller/Urey does NOT give us THE explanation for how life got started on Earth. It provides only one PLAUSIBLE explanation for how life got started.

To put it in terms that the willfully ignorant might understand, let's use Vinnie's red corvette example. In such an analogy, Miller/Urey's experiments proved that the internal combustion engine could work. They didn't build a working model of an internal combustion engine, nor did they prove that other engines wouldn't work (an electrical engine, for example). They just ran a few experiments based on gasoline being exploded in a contained atmosphere that showed that it COULD work. Their experiments proved that an internal combustion engine would work, and they didn't even have to turn the ignition key on the corvette to prove it.

Beyond the science behind the engine itself, Miller/Urey did NOT set out to prove whether the corvette body shell was aerodynamically designed, whether the seats were comfortable, or whether anyone but a person with small genitals feels the need to buy one. Those attributes of the car itself EVOLVED from the history of the internal combustion engine being developed, to the basic machines developed to use the engine (vehicles, air compressors, etc), to specific vehicles evolving (cars and trucks) to specific cars (sports cars) to brands of cars (Chevies) to make and model of cars (Corvette).

I think we're arguing over how closely we agree on this one.

BTW - I know the evidence on Miller/Urey quite well, but thank you for citing scientific evidence to back up your point.

DAVID wrote (OCTOBER 1, 2007 2:08 PM): "If your still around, you asked for evidence regarding Miller's experimnet. I suggest you find the evidence yourself. What I do know is the atmosphere that he used consisted of ammonia and methane and from what I've read the early atmosphere did not consist of these elements or were less evident than what he used in his experiment. Also, a thing to mention would be the amount of electricity he used is not consistent with the early atmosphere as well. Please feel free to find the evidence yourself. Even for some reason if he had the correct mixture, it's a long way from producing living matter from non. Creating amino acids does not create living matter. Simply the building blocks to do so. And please trust me, I didn't read this off of any creationist websites like the answersingenesis.com garbage."

You just don't understand what this is all about, or what's been going on... do you? Miller and Urey were trying to create the conditions under which organic chemicals might have formed... a precursor to the spontaneous arising of 'life. The succeeded in creating some or the requisite organic chemicals. Big whoop. This is REALLY old news. Now, here you are, quibbling about whether they used the right kind of gasses, and whether they were justified in the voltage they selected for the electrical charge. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... astronomical observations over the past decade or so have detected immense clouds of organic chemicals (the 'building blocks of life'... amino acids... sugars) 10s of light years in size, in the vicinity of 'stellar nurseries'. Over 200 species of organic chemicals have been identified so-far. Current speculation includes the idea that simple life forms might have actually originated in space, given that organic chemicals, water and energy are abundant.

It may be that "When and how did life originate on earth?" is not even the right question to be asking. It could be that 'life' rained down on earth during the entire time that it was being formed. It could be that the right question (far-fetched... but possible) is "When did conditions on earth stabilize to the point where life was able to take hold?" In any event, there is no question but that the 'building blocks of life' rained down upon the earth during the entire period that it was being formed... and for tens of millions of years thereafter. Also... the same would be true for ALL of the tens of millions of sun-like solar systems in our own little galaxy... and the trillions of sun-like solar systems throughout the universe.

Personally... I think that life is probably obly a couple orders of magnitude less common than DIRT, throughout the universe... an inevitable consequence of the simple, natural organic-chemical processes that (our observations tell us) seem to be ubiquitous in the universe... the RULE, rather than the exception... just like PLANETS are now understood to be the RULE, rather than the exception.

I get the impression that you don't WANT for there to be a natural explanation for life. Why might that be? Anyway... if you look at these in order, they will give you a pretty good sequential overview of what's been going on, and what the current thinking is, since the turn of the century...

June 17, 2000: www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=163

March 27, 2002: astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319

March, 2005: www.europhysicsnews.com/full/32/article4.pdf

September 08, 2005: www.physorg.com/news6305.html

DECEMBER 31, 2006: scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2006/12/clues-to-origins-of-life.html

For a more complete picture of what has been going on, Google for: space organic chemical cloud amino acid sugar

Gerry, "What else do religionists hope that there 'is', in addition to what 'is'"

They want someplace to park their truth claims where reality can't intrude.

Duckphup, Chip, E fav:

The sheer notion of "supernatural" is already a contradiction within the word itself. Nature is, what is. What else do religionists hope that there "is", in addition to what "is"?

Nobody has an overview over "what is", but to extend the meaning of the word "is" to an entity that is NOT, contradicts "is". So lets try to find out what "is".

And to repeat myself: It is pretty awesome what "is"! Religion tries to defend what "is not" in the above sense, belittling what "is".

My "religious genes" and the corresponding neurons are quite satisfied imagining what "is", especially considering all of what "is" which I don't know!

Mr. Mark,

If your still around, you asked for evidence regarding Miller's experimnet. I suggest you find the evidence yourself. What I do know is the atmosphere that he used consisted of ammonia and methane and from what I've read the early atmosphere did not consist of these elements or were less evident than what he used in his experiment. Also, a thing to mention would be the amount of electricity he used is not consistent with the early atmosphere as well. Please feel free to find the evidence yourself. Even for some reason if he had the correct mixture, it's a long way from producing living matter from non. Creating amino acids does not create living matter. Simply the building blocks to do so. And please trust me, I didn't read this off of any creationist websites like the answersingenesis.com garbage.

Have a good day.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "The problem with most of the discussion on the topic of faith in this series is that sweeping statements are made-- vast generalizations of the either-or type-- that ignore or obscure the complexity of the subject."

It's not 'complex' at all. (I'm presuming that you are using the scientifically-naive definition for 'complex' here, and that you really mean 'complicated'.) All that is really necessary is that one have the ability differentiate between 'knowledge' and the ILLUSION of knowledge. One of the primary tasks and objectives of 'religion' is to obfuscate that simple truth in the minds of as many people as possible.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Many distinctions and careful definitions are needed to do justice to a topic on which everybody seems to be an expert."

That is why we have 'books', in addition to essays and articles. But the REAL problem lies in the fact that religious people seem to not have been blessed with the ABILITY to make critical distinctions. For example, probably 95 out of 100 christians will tell you that having 'faith' that your mate is not screwing around on you, having 'faith' that the chair you are sitting in is not going to collapse, and having 'faith' that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) EXIST pretty-much amount to the same thing. They are simply incapable of discerning the context-based qualitative differences in the meaning of 'faith'... and they are not capable of appreciating the implications of those differences. And really, the differences are not subtle AT ALL... to the critical thinker. To the NON-critical thinker, though... well, the phrase 'oblivious to the obvious' comes to mind.

In other words, it does not matter HOW precisely to try to define your terms or draw your distinctions, if the people you are trying to converse with are incapable of making those kinds of distinctions. The problem has NOTHING to do with distinctions and definitions... it has to do with the fact that (my unscientific estimate) less than around 10% of the population of the USA possesses critical thinking skills.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "I am a religious person, but I do not recognize myself in Christopher Hitchens latest outburst. Neither do I demean atheists or question their integrity or morality or rationality. I just disagree with them. I am as offended by many of the mean comments about atheism and atheists as is Susan Jacoby."

Good.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "But now she comes along in the midst of her insightful analysis and declares dogmatically: "All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition."

Yep... belief is the ILLUSION of knowledge. The CERTAINTY that we KNOW that 'somehing' exists... something that we have absolutely no evidence for... something that exists outside of 'existence' itself... is rational... HOW, exactly?

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "It wold take much space to unravel all that is said, implied, or assumed in that blunt declaration."

No, it wouldn't. See above.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "I would just like for her to tell me how she considers her charge to apply, e. g., to Alfred North Whitehead -- a distinguished philosopher of science who believed in God."

It is not surprising that Whitehead should have believed in god... his whole life and family were steeped in religion... some of his relatives were church-men. But his 'god' was nothing like the 'revealed' god of the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism... it was more like 'nature' itself... ever changing... ever evolving. Anyway... being smart and famous does not convey an immunity to self-deception, self-delusion, compartmentalization or making mistakes. And his metaphysics and philosophy of science... while interesting... have had no profound or lasting influence on the progress of science through the 20th century... or now. Even now there are brilliant men who believe in god... Francis Collins comes to mind. Critical-thinker in the laboratory... checks in his brains at the church door. I cannot explain this, except as an example of 'compartmentalization'. But consider... when you get up into the rarified atmosphere where people like Collins operate... less than 5% of them subscribe to the existence of 'dieties', or the 'supernatural'. Why do you think that is? People like Collins are best accounted for as a statistical abberation. Could he be 'right? Sure he could. (Search this page for: 'SURE there is'.) Is there any compelling reason to THINK that he is right? No.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Why should I bother to engage in further discussion with her when she declares at the outset that my thought is irrational by definition before she has even heard my case or my definitions."

Well... maybe you could come away from the experience with a better understanding of what kinds of thought processes are 'rational'. But... if your case depends upon the 'supernatural'... then it is NOT rational. The details of your case then become irrelevant.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Just for starters I might suggest that belief in God does not necessarily involve, require, or imply reference to anything that violates the laws of nature, i. e., the supernatural in her sense of the term. Of course, before we could even get that far, we would need to hear her definition of nature -- and mine."

"Ahhh... zee old 'moving zee goal-posts' ploy." ~ Inspector Clouseau

OK... now we are entering the world of sophistry. when you have a 'natural' explanation for people walking on water, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven... get back to us... OK?

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Finally, I can't resist asking her is she regards the claim of Aristotle that slavery is justified by the laws of nature is religion or 'secular knowledge'."

Sophistry, again. You do not consider zeitgeist. You do not consider context. Here we have a guy who existed at the DAWN of the time when people were just STARTING to try to deal with abstract thought in a formal and organized manner. A time when a world that did NOT involve the 'divine' was inconceiveable. A guy who had the peculiar notion that all that could be 'known' could be figured out by the human mind... by human thought. He was wrong. Your question about whether "...the claim of Aristotle that slavery is justified by the laws of nature is religion or 'secular knowledge'" is nothing more than a 'red herring', which need only be taken note of... and dismissed. Also to be taken note of... you need to do some reading, and learn about what 'knowledge' is. You might want to start with some articles on 'epistemology'.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Is she not aware the the question of faith and reason, religion and secular knowledge, is a highly complex subject in itself not resolvable by a simple dichotomy between the two?"

Aware of WHAT?

Science: "We don't know... we're workin' on it. Go away and quit botherin' us with your damned fairy-tales... we're busy."

Religion: WE know... it was 'revealed' to us... God did it."

Not that complex, is it? See?... it IS a simple dichotomy... I just resolved it.

E FAVORITE writes:
"Kacco: “Anyway, there's plenty of supernatural stuff still going on that we don't understand.” See Duckphup and Chip above. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s supernatural."

The scientist doesn't understand something and says, "there's got to be a natural explanation for this. Let's get to work and find that explanation."

The religionist doesn't understand something and says, "God did it. Looking for an explanation is blasphemy."

And there you have it.

One question the religious faithful should ask themselves with an open mind - will religion play the same role in explaining the mysteries of the cosmos and reality in general, in say, 100 years??

Given that religions tend to change very little (are really entropic) while the frontiers of science continually move forward - it may well be that we'll one day have perfectly valid explanations for physical phenomena that would appear both miraculous and quite 'super-natural' today.

See Inflation Theory - The field of cosmology and physics is expanding at warp speed - we may one day soon have not only proof of a continually re-newing multi-verse (and infinity of universes), but an actual grand unified theory that reconciles the macro-world with the micro or quantum world.

The concept of infinity just doesn't have a mathematical nitch currently, so new math will need to be invented to deal with, well, endlessness....this is not mythology, but could well be a looming reality.

It may be that some religions were prescient in regard to conceiving a much larger universe than was ever imagined ' in the day' of religious primacy. As one Muslim poster pointed out, the Koran may have been more futuristic than we in the Christian world ever knew - certainly the Hindus and Buddhists imagined a much larger Cosmos. But nevertheless.......

Orthodox religion is really getting to be too small, too curiously mundane and earth-centered (not necessarily in a good way) to explain much of anything to the truly curious seeker of real knowledge.

Religion provides emotional comfort but little else to those that are looking at religion from the outside in, so to speak - are these the
un-faithful?? Perhaps so....

Anyway, a question worth asking for those committed religionists that wonder about
'atheists lost along the way'. They may know something you don't know.

Thank you for stateing the obvious( though it seems unobvious to most)about atheists( or in my case agnostic). I believe that most fanatic relgions would benefit greatly from a little sound reasoning from secularists. But, GOD forbid, they listen to anything that doesn't fall into there very small parameters of what they consider "true " belief. How could God( either theirs or mine, if I had one) be so intolerant of others veiws or beliefs?Of others passions?Of others morals? As long as any of these passions, morals ,or beliefs don't harm, destroy, or interfer with "social morals" , where is the harm? and as long as these promote strong relationships between individuals and societies , again, what's the harm?
I believe in a spirit that guides me and all that surrounds me( all inclusive) based on right and wrong, good and bad....but that is not black or white. So many times in the past I have had christians try to convert me. Yet when they hear what I believe, they are astounded that I don't believe in Christ. I tell them, much to their horror, that I am guided by a higher power.
Again, thank you for your statemnet

Kacoo: “Anyway, there's plenty of supernatural stuff still going on that we don't understand.” See Duckphup and Chip above. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.

Susan, Dear Lady, you are my HERO :-) Thank you for speaking on our behalf with such skill. I have to endure so much living in TN, that I no longer have the energy, and am looking to leave the US, ASAP.

Susan, Dear Lady, you are my HERO :-) Thank you for speaking on our behalf with such skill. I have to endure so much living in TN, that I no longer have the energy, and am looking to leave the US, ASAP.

The problem with most of the discussion on the topic of faith in this series is that sweeping statements are made-- vast generalizations of the either-or type-- that ignore or obscure the complexity of the subject. Many distinctions and careful definitions are needed to do justice to a topic on which everybody seems to be an expert. I am a religious person, but I do not recognize myself in Christopher Hitchens latest outburst. Neither do I demean atheists or question their integrity or morality or rationality. I just disagree with them. I am as offended by many of the mean comments about atheism and atheists as is Susan Jacoby. But now she comes along in the midst of her insightful analysis and declares dogmatically: "All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition." It wold take much space to unravel all that is said, implied, or assumed in that blunt declaration. I would just like for her to tell me how she considers her charge to apply, e. g., to Alfred North Whitehead -- a distinguished philosopher of science who believed in God. Why should I bother to engage in further discussion with her when she declares at the outset that my thought is irrational by definition before she has even heard my case or my definitions. Just for starters I might suggest that belief in God does not necessarily involve, require, or imply reference to anything that violates the laws of nature, i. e., the supernatural in her sense of the term. Of course, before we could even get that far, we would need to hear her definition of nature -- and mine.

Finally, I can't resist asking her is she regards the claim of Aristotle that slavery is justified by the laws of nature is religion or "secular knowledge." Is she not aware the the question of faith and reason, religion and secular k nowledge, is a highly complex subject in itself not resolvable by a simple dichotomy between the two?

no one has mentioned Popper here, which is too bad because it would clarify a lot of the error being spouted about science and religion. Popper proposed a simple test for thinking through the difference between a scientific claim and a piece of dogma (whether that dogma be political, philosophical or religious). A scientific claim is falsifiable - it can (and often is) found to have error and is changed by testing. Religious dogma, however, is not falsifiable - no matter what is found, said, or seen, religious people (and communists - popper's initial target) always explain it.

That;s why ignorance is so important - no scientist ever claims the Truth. That's why spouting nonsense like How Come you Cannot Explain That???? - has nothing to do with science as it is practiced.

What religious dogmatists do is explain away all discrepant behavior; what scientists do is worry about it and test it out again.

Nor has anyone mentioned Kant's argument - if science is just god at work then there is no science as we understand that term. Because the system of laws and consistent phenomena can only exist apart from belief or they are merely another belief. But science is not merely another belief. It is a process that reveals facts completely independent of the believer or the belief system - that's why christians and muslims and jews can all be scientists.

The claim for Intelligent Design, like the claim for god guarantees morality is simply not an argument but a ratioanlization - I can imagine it no other way, so it must be so. Science proceeds quite differently - the data say this and not that. The theory must yield if the data contradict it.

Consider it factually: there are fewer violent crimes in France than in the US. But most French people are non-believers. Those are the facts; Christians who are dogmatists have to explain it away with some insult. It's also a fact that America is one of the most ardently believing and Christian nation on the face of the earth - but legally and morally comitted to tolerance.

Has anyone read the Mormon history? The facts: it is based on myth and utterly implausible accounts. But, fact: most Mormons are god-fearing and upright people now. Thus, the irrational basis of Mormonism is no more the issue that Newton's obsession with astrology or the early christian's irrational belief in a virgin birth that was based on a mistranslation.

In short, the rational or irrational basis of belief has little to do with what makes so many people posting here resort to ad hominen attacks. Belief is not Faith. Faith exists in spite of the fact that the beliefs are flawed and uncertain. Dogma has no place in either true Faith or true science.

process for making sense out of the physical world

no one has mentioned Popper here, which is too bad because it would clarify a lot of the error being spouted about science and religion. Popper proposed a simple test for thinking through the difference between a scientific claim and a piece of dogma (whether that dogma be political, philosophical or religious). A scientific claim is falsifiable - it can (and often is) found to have error and is changed by testing. Religious dogma, however, is not falsifiable - no matter what is found, said, or seen, religious people (and communists - popper's initial target) always explain it.

That;s why ignorance is so important - no scientist ever claims the Truth. That's why spouting nonsense like How Come you Cannot Explain That???? - has nothing to do with science as it is practiced.

What religious dogmatists do is explain away all discrepant behavior; what scientists do is worry about it and test it out again.

Nor has anyone mentioned Kant's argument - if science is just god at work then there is no science as we understand that term. Because the system of laws and consistent phenomena can only exist apart from belief or they are merely another belief. But science is not merely another belief. It is a process that reveals facts completely independent of the believer or the belief system - that's why christians and muslims and jews can all be scientists.

The claim for Intelligent Design, like the claim for god guarantees morality is simply not an argument but a ratioanlization - I can imagine it no other way, so it must be so. Science proceeds quite differently - the data say this and not that. The theory must yield if the data contradict it.

Consider it factually: there are fewer violent crimes in France than in the US. But most French people are non-believers. Those are the facts; Christians who are dogmatists have to explain it away with some insult. It's also a fact that America is one of the most ardently believing and Christian nation on the face of the earth - but legally and morally comitted to tolerance.

Has anyone read the Mormon history? The facts: it is based on myth and utterly implausible accounts. But, fact: most Mormons are god-fearing and upright people now. Thus, the irrational basis of Mormonism is no more the issue that Newton's obsession with astrology or the early christian's irrational belief in a virgin birth that was based on a mistranslation.

In short, the rational or irrational basis of belief has little to do with what makes so many people posting here resort to ad hominen attacks. Belief is not Faith. Faith exists in spite of the fact that the beliefs are flawed and uncertain. Dogma has no place in either true Faith or true science.

process for making sense out of the physical world

If you think about it, fundamentalist christians (akin to their radical islamic bretheran) cannot accept freedom and democracy on principle.

I agreed with this most of the way through. Towards the end though it seems to lose the ability to understand the beliefs of the people being critiqued (something problematic if they are the subject of her next book).

Many of what she calls the "religious fanatics" believe that things are good and bad because God declares them so. On such a view of ethics, atheism is directly incompatible with there being such a thing as ethics. So an atheist could presumably be ethical by chance (that is while not understanding what it is to be ethical happening to do the behaviors that are ethical).

And if it is true that ethics is what God declares right and wrong, then convincing people that this is not what ethics is could certainly be damaging the souls of those convinced. It is silly to think that people cannot be swayed to incorrect (and even dangerous incorrect) views by what appear to be rational arguments.

I am an atheist, so obviously I think this views above are mistaken, but it is a mistake to think they are not coherent arguments, or beliefs that a reasonable person could hold.

Jacoby did a good job of distancing herself from the unreason of Hitchens and Harris, but she falls into it a bit in the end.

G. Night, "'belief in the supernatural is by definition irrational' This cannot be right. Suppose someone had good empirical evidence for psychic activity? would you want to rule out such evidence a priori?"

If there were good empirical evidence for psychic activity then it wouldn't be supernatural. The current limits of our knowledge don't define the limits of the natural world. Things either exist or they don't. The so-called supernatural world exists so that people can posit things that supposedly exist outside of existence. That is irrational by definition. It's a way of saying that we can pretend to know all there is to know about something because it's unknowable. It's a get out of reason free card.

The error people make is in jumping straight from "we don't know" or "we're not certain" to "it exists and it's magic." That's "god of the gaps" reasoning, and no, it isn't rational. There may well be extra sensory perception, but would it be supernatural? No, it would exist in the natural world or we wouldn't be able to experience it. It could be something related to entanglement or other quantum effects, perhaps. We don't know, and that's okay. What isn't okay is pretending we do - filling up the gaps in our knowledge with fantastical claims and wild leaps of assumption and calling them supernatural.

Michael wrote (October 1, 2007 7:20 AM): "What are the laws of nature ? Are you talking physics here ? or just your perception that no one can walk on water or raise the dead ?"

Oh, come on. It is common speech. And you don't 'get it'? OK... try this... everything that can exist and everything that can occur in the universe is, by definition, 'natural'... THAT meaning that agents operating from outside of nature precluded... because 'nature' is all that there is. There is no innate requirement that we have to UNDERSTAND nature... or freak out and scream "Supernatural... god did it" when we don't.

Also... there are no compelling reasons to think that STORIES about people walking on water or 'rising from the dead' are credible... PARTICULARLY when we take 'zeitgeist' into account. And when we realize that the only WITNESSES that are asserted to exist, exist ONLY as a part of the STORY. There ARE NO witnesses APART from the story. The STORY is no more credible, and the 'witnesses' are no more credible than the story and the 'witnesses' in a Superman comic book.

Michael wrote "Take the virgin birth for example, there are many cases of this phenom in history, Pythagoras and Zoraster are a couple of them.

That statement makes it necessary for me to ask if you know what the difference, or are able to TELL the difference, between 'cases' of a 'phenomenon' and a 'claim'. Also... the way that you have constructed your sentence implies that you regard the alleged virgin births of Pythagorus and Zoraster as actual historical events... that they are actually 'true'... that they REALLY HAPPENED. Do you REALLY believe that Pythagorus and Zoraster were born of virgins?... or are we just erroneously led to THINK that you believe that, as a consequence of sloppy sentence structure?

Michael wrote "The difference between belief and knowledge is perception and yours seems to be rather limited in scope."

Well... OK... that sure clears up a lot.... you just don't know what you're talking about. OK... let me help. 'Knowledge' is what is 'known'... and in science, all knowledge is understood to be 'provisional'. 'Belief' (in the context that we are discussing) is the ILLUSION of knowledge. Your assertion that "...the difference between belief and knowledge is perception" is fatuous, and fallacious.

'Faith' (magical, wishful thinking) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence' (one of the things that leads to 'knowledge').

Faith-based 'belief' (the internalized certainty that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some vital aspect of existence and/or reality) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'... in fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge... or, in this context... self-delusion.

Faith + belief ---> self-deception, self-delusion and willful ignorance.

'Belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is NOT ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

Michael wrote "Have you ever had an oobe? out of body experience?"

I have. So what? It happens. We can't explain it... or, at least, we couldn't explain it BEFORE... it looks like they might be close to explaining it NOW, though. It might interest you to know that scientists have recently managed to INDUCE OBEs in the laboratory. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm

Michael wrote "Have you ever seen something that you couldn't explain?"

I have... lots of times. (search this page for 'Taipei') So what? When we encounter something that we cannot explain, all that 'tells' us is that there is something going on that we cannot explain. There are several things that might account for such occurrences:

* We are being deliberately tricked
* We are being lied to
* Our senses are fooling us
* Coincidence
* Self-deception
* Self-delusion
* Mental aberration or defect
* (a lot of other possibilities that I can't think of right now)
* ...
* ...
* There is something going on that we cannot explain... yet.
* ...
* An infinitely complex conscious entity... all-powerful... all-knowing... all-present... all loving... murderous... genocidal... compassionate... petty... capricious... jealous... forgiving... psychopathic... has no beginning... has no ending... has no cause... has/will exist forever... operates upon the universe from outside the confines of reality... did it.

The point is that ALL of these possibilities must be considered and eliminated... and even then, there is NOTHING that REQUIRES us to to give up and declare "Uh-oh... something we can't explain... God did it." (search this page for 'Barbrady'.) Really, we have only just BEGUN to try to explain things... or, rather, it is more accurate to say that we have only just recently RESUMED trying to explain things, following the (approximately) 1,200 year intermission that was imposed on us by Christianity. Give it a little time, why don't ya? Surely... the acts of the opera should be longer than the intermission? Huh? Right? Give it another 800 or 1,000 years... OK? How about it?

Is there a POSSIBILITY that some sort of invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) is operating things from behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz? SURE there is. (Be sure to take note of condescending, patronizing tone.) WHY is it possible? Well, logic requires us to SAY that it is possible, because we are not able to PROVE that it is NOT possible. WHY can't we PROVE that it is NOT possible? Well... because it is not 'falsifiable'. There is simply no WAY (that we know of) to PROVE that it is NOT possible.

But... while logic compels us to SAY that it is 'possible', it DOES NOT require us to BELIEVE that it is possible... just like logic does not require us to BELIEVE that Bertrand Russell's china teapot is orbiting the sun. SO... while logic compels us to SAY that it is 'possible', it does NOT compel us to take the idea seriously... it does not require us to 'respect' the idea... it does not even ask us not to LAUGH at the idea... PARTICULARLY in light of the fact that the accumulation of knowledge and insight over the past hundred years or so TELLS us... quite explicitly... that we have NO NEED of the invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairy hypothesis.

My main gripe with 'logic' is that it compels us to SAY that the ridiculous is 'possible'. Somebody REALLY ought to DO somehing about that.

Michael wrote "Open your mind and more importantly your heart and you will find that there is much more out there than you can imagine."

Having an open mind is a good thing. Having it SO open that (metaphorically) your brains fall out is NOT a good thing. That is why we have words like 'credulity' and 'gullibility'.

Michael wrote "Thinking that you know the truth about reality is naive at best and foolish at worse."

Now that's really funny... you have just provided us with a definition of 'belief'... although your description of it being "... naive at best and foolish at worse" seems sort of limiting... maybe even a 'false dichotomy'. Where do 'stupid', 'insane' and 'delusional' fit in there?... in the middle?... at the end?... never mind.

The whole thrust and purpose of science is based upon the premise that we DO NOT know the 'truth' about reality. Heck... we don't even know what reality IS. Your statement (a virtuoso exhibition of sophistry) is a 'red herring' of the worst sort. You take what are some of the WORST of the properties that defines 'religion'... self-delusion and willful ignorance... and then attempt to paint 'science' with the same brush. Sorry Bubba... that just ain't so.

Actually, I think the Constitution of 1787 guaranteed no established church for the state. In context, that meant that Jews and Catholics would not be taxed to fund the Anglican church of England's successor church in America.

Anyway, there's plenty of supernatural stuff still going on that we don't understand. For example, division by zero and how lightning chooses its path. I personally don't know how the unseen electricity paints colors onto the flat computer screen like the magic latern shows of centuries ago.

Those who denounce forces unseen and not understood as forces that do not exist are like the church leaders of yore who said the earth was flat.

One of my favorite idiocities is the beer story. The story goes that long ago people drank beer and wine rather than water because water was contamiated with bacteria that made people sick with cholera and other nasty things. Of course, people had no idea of bacteria in water until much later. They didn't know water was bad. They just knew beer and wine were healthy. A big stein of beer before work in the morning assured a productive day.

In fact, in the civil war, a gunshot wound was treated with whisky -- not in the wound to prevent gangrene, but down the hatch to manage the pain. People lost hands, feet, arms, legs, and who knows what else because they didn't know that the trick to preventing infection was to put the alcohol on the wound, not into the wounded.

Of course if some time traveler had told them about the magical power of antiseptic alcohol, then Hitchen and Dawkins would have denounced them as fools and gone back to sawing off legs.

Art M: “As a group, [atheists] are just like the Baptists or the Catholics or Muslims in that they have their neat little club with bylaws and regulations and traditions….”

Please tell us where and what these bylaws, regulations and traditions are. Could you provide an internet link? Thanks.

PAT COSTA: “I don’t wear an atheist lapel pin (does such a thing even exist?).”

Yes, try https://lightning.he.net/~atheists/catalogue/shop/prod3230.php for a start.

I’ve got the one that’s pictured in the upper left corner.

Also try http://outcampaign.org/ for red “A” pins and T-shirts.

By the way, atheists don’t proselytize. Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief.

Anonymous wrote: "Nonsense. That which is supernatural is "above nature", that is, it is outside of the 4 natural dimensions which we experience. It does not contradict nature. In the same way that 3 dimensional objects do not contradict 1 dimensional objects. They simply add to them. The supernatural is not the magical. But it is easy to think of it that way because then it is easier to reject."

Well, now... THAT is nonsense. The '4 natural dimensions' that we experience do NOT define or describe 'nature'... they are merely a reflection of the limitations that are IMPOSED upon us by 'nature'. Further... those '4 natural dimensions' of which you speak are not 'natural' at all... they do not actually 'exist'... they are an abstract concept that provides us with a way of relating to, communicating about, and describing our world (universe). And with regard to the '4th dimension'... time... there is no compelling reason to think that time 'exists' apart from human consciousness. In other words, we don't measure time... we create it... sort of... it is an illusion. ANY scalar quantity that we deem to be 'useful' for describing an event or a 'thing' in a perticular context can be regarded as a 'dimension'. Why? Because we say so. That is why dimensions (abstractly) 'exist' at all... because we say they do.

Here is a multi-dimensional description... 3, 4, 12, 5, 43, 156, 4, 6, 11, 6... a 10-dimensional world. Perfectly meaningless... until we provide a suitable context. 3rd floor of the library... 4th row of shelves... 12th section... 5th shelf from the bottom... 43rd book from the left... page 156... 4th paragraph... 6th line... 11th word... 6th letter.

Wow... that's supernatural.

Additional dimensions DO NOT take us outside the realm of 'nature'; to the contrary... they allow us to construct a more fine-grained DESCRIPTION of nature.

The 'supernatural'... specifically... by definition... describes something affecting 'nature' from without.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." ~ Groucho Marx

"I have seen the future. It is very much like the present... only longer." ~ Unknown

"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once." ~ Unknown

"belief in the supernatural is by definition irrational"
This cannot be right. Suppose someone had good empirical evidence for psychic activity? would you want to rule out such evidence a priori? on what grounds
There are tons of arguments for God's existence. Such arguments may or may not be sound. But it is surely cheating to suppose that just because they assert the existence of a supernatural entity they are bad arguments. That is question begging.

"All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition"

Nonsense. That which is supernatural is "above nature", that is, it is outside of the 4 natural dimensions which we experience. It does not contradict nature. In the same way that 3 dimensional objects do not contradict 1 dimensional objects. They simply add to them. The supernatural is not the magical. But it is easy to think of it that way because then it is easier to reject.

As a non-believer, a scientist, and a critical thinking human being, I constantly entertain the notion that I may be wrong, and that there may indeed be a God. Can any believers claim the same, but in the reverse?

...sound of crickets chirping fills the night...

No, I did not think so. And that is what will always separate the true believers from the rest. They are forced to believe (by definition) without evidence, while I require at least some type of proof. But at least I'm humble enough to admit that I do not know all the answers and I'm open to alternative viewpoints. If the religious could claim the same, then you might convert me.

"The atheist-bashers really hate freedom of speech. They would have preferred a Constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion but not the freedom to speak out against religion. They lost that battle when the Constitution was written in 1787, and they have never gotten over it."

Ms. Jacoby's article on the whole is an excellent commentary, but with the above words, she has hit the nail on the head in identifying what lies at the heart of the so-called Christian fundamentalist movement. It is precisely that core outlook that makes fundamentalism a clear and present danger to the American experiment in democracy; makes it the enemy of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all true Americans; and renders null and void any argument that the fundies are just another religious movement that the rest of us should benignly tolerate.

The fundies have a political, not a religious, agenda. It is to establish an American theocracy, and one based on the more narrow-minded, bigoted, blind, and anti-rational wing of Christianity. It must be opposed with vigor.

I wonder if Jehowa, Allah and the father of Jesus could get together on a deal that would save their subjects some suffering?

Susan,

Thanks for speaking-up regarding (and of course writing about) the hold that religion has on public life (as well as the way citizens are judged by their fellows.) For some time now, I've thought about the deists, and personally felt attracted to the Kurt Vonnegut invention of "The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent". It is frightening to me to see so much pressure applied in our society, but particularly against political candidates to show how their religious background makes them somehow better leaders.

It USED to be that a few topics were considered out of bounds for discussion in polite society, one's religion (except for the fact you believed in some way), politics, and sexual mores. It was much easier tNow, of course, it seems there are no such prohibitions, and in-fact the public seems to clamor for such discussion.

I am always uneasy around those declaring their belief systems; it seems too easy to capture the support of the public by doing so....I wish that more folks could be comfortable declaring their lack of a belief in the supernatural, but the same tired attacks regarding "then where did our beliefs of right and wrong come from ??" eventually are pulled out as "proof" of an all-powerful deity.....there is no debate from that point.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting article.

That was Gerry, sorry.

Michael,

"virgin" birth is based on a mistranslation. The greek word "Parthenos" (male ending "os" for a female meaning, btw!) means nothing else than "young woman".

I am firmly convinced that Susan Jacoby knows where the word "religion" comes from without looking it up and without consulting you.

You are a typical specimen of people who think they know the truth where the huge gaps of there knowledge are located and mistakenly allege others, far more educated and thinking fellow humans, to believe just that.

As to the laws of nature (observable cause and effect rules, not juridic laws!): Something is either possible or impossible. Can you stll follow? Would you agree? If it happens, it is possible, otherwise it wouldn't happen and thereby stay within those observable natural rules (they may not all have been observed yet). But to claim something impossible as possible is not religion, but logical nonsense.

The difference between knowledge and belief is not perception, it is evidence or lack thereof. The difference is fact vs. illusion. Perception: If you close your eyes, the things you don't see anymore are still there!

So instead of calling others insensitive, you might read a book or two. If you see something you can't explain, instead of positing a god into the void, you might try to find a method to explain it. That is what science is about. Without the existence of this "ungodly" method, you wouldn't even be able to tap the keys of your computer to voice such opinions, and I doubt, btw., that you can explain how and why it works! Not many years ago, such a computer would easily have served as a proof of god's existence...

What a bunch of 'fruit loops'!!!!

There are hundreds of religions, each believes in that their god (or gods) is the one true, all powerful being, supreme to any other god. That belief can lead to all sorts of mayhem committed in the name of, and under the aegis of, that god. Logically, they cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong. The absence of a deity is more logical than its existence. Voltaire said we would have to invent god, if he didn’t exist; that is exactly what people have done. God exists, in the minds of the true believers, because they seem unable to trust their own moral compass without the presumption of external and divine intervention. Living as an atheist is more problematic because they cannot assuage a conscience, guilt ridden for an unsocial act, by convincing themselves that god wanted them to act that way. An atheist must do the right thing or accept the consequences. I do not feel compelled to proselytize atheism; I don’t wear an atheist lapel pin (does such a thing even exist?). I will admit to being one if asked, but, frankly, too many believers feel threatened by my opinion. Twain said it best, that there was an omission from the bible; “Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor’s religion is.” That single omission led to all manner of crimes against humanity in the past and continues, to this day, to foment unrest and strife around the world.

There are hundreds of religions, each believes in that their god (or gods) is the one true, all powerful being, supreme to any other god. That belief can lead to all sorts of mayhem committed in the name of, and under the aegis of, that god. Logically, they cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong. The absence of a deity is more logical than its existence. Voltaire said we would have to invent god, if he didn’t exist; that is exactly what people have done. God exists, in the minds of the true believers, because they seem unable to trust their own moral compass without the presumption of external and divine intervention. Living as an atheist is more problematic because they cannot assuage a conscience, guilt ridden for an unsocial act, by convincing themselves that god wanted them to act that way. An atheist must do the right thing or accept the consequences. I do not feel compelled to proselytize atheism; I don’t wear an atheist lapel pin (does such a thing even exist?). I will admit to being one if asked, but, frankly, too many believers feel threatened by my opinion. Twain said it best, that there was an omission from the bible; “Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor’s religion is.” That single omission led to all manner of crimes against humanity in the past and continues, to this day, to foment unrest and strife around the world.

I agree with much of what Susan says. Having dealt personally with bewilderment or anger on the part of religious fundamentalists at my lack of belief, I generally find them amusing in their attempts to convert me. So many of them are firm in their belief that only they are the one true religion. I find the rigidity of belief to be roughly the same among the devout Christian, Muslim or Jew or any other religious denomination.
However, when those same groups, in any country, proclaim that anyone else not of their faith are infidels and that their code of conduct is the only one that should be used in the creation and interpretation of laws that govern all citizens of that country, regardless of faith or lack thereof, I draw the line. Within the US Bill of Rights, our founders got it wrong. The first amendment should have said freedom of and freedom from religion. You are welcome to your beliefs, but let me have my lack of belief. Don't assume your moral code from your religion has any more precedence than my moral code.

Susan, You are a fine writer but a lot of what you say doesn't make any sense. For example your belief that anything that contradicts the "laws" of nature is absurd. What are the laws of nature ? Are you talking physics here ? or just your perception that no one can walk on water or raise the dead ?
Having written much about not believing I would be willing to bet, without looking it up, you couldn't tell me the definition of the word religion from the Latin root. true or not ?
Take the virgin birth for example, there are many cases of this phenom in history, Pythagoras and Zoraster are a couple of them.
The difference between belief and knowledge is perception and yours seems to be rather limited in scope. Have you ever had an oobe ? out of body experience ? Have you ever seen something that you couldn't explain ?
Open your mind and more importantly your heart and you will find that there is much more out there than you can imagine. Thinking that you know the truth about reality is naive at best and foolish at worse.
Good luck

Be it understood humanities objection to severe religious brainwashing, is by no means insult to any of the prophets as sent to inspire,guide in Spiritual development.The objections be as to the way Spiritual teachings, abused in translation, by those whom seek Spiritual as political power over others,for good reason or bad, dependent on period of history,conflicts,nation at war within. Coming to terms with reality, freeing self from the trappings of illusion, material as Spiritual. Hence,to followers of JESUS as MUHAMMAD as to the MANY whom have given all in service to humanity. There be no intent of disrespect as disagreement that ever intended,the presence of JESUS be one's blessing, as to have walked with MUHAMMAD..yet it must human development continue,as progress unto further our experience,understanding than past masters gave,as imparted by JESUS MUHAMMAD. Yesterdays meal does not satisfy todays hunger, todays needs,we cannot live in the past rather face todays future.The brains capability ever in stages of further development,our understanding grows,matched by experience,ever more reveiled. Though we differ much in revalation our source be as the one,such more fully realized when nearing completion of journey,it being MUHAMMAD as JESUS having but changed human forms.As must we change in such our balanced understanding as experience. Allah be Praised God is GREAT.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

sometimes I have a suspicion that these posters (Vinny, Maria, Matthew etc.) are just spoofing in order to intentionally disgrace their "pretended" religionists' positions, that in reality they are on the reason side and just with masquerade and impersonation tricks want to show to which degree of nonsense, superstition, bigotry and cabaret you can go and still find some backers. In this case, I seldom have encountered a more sophisticated degree of impersonating the concept of stupidity. Congratulations then!

Also the penetrant prayer mill question of Vinny that none of us ever comes with an "answer", instead we are "running for the hills" (I like that) points into this direction.

I may be wrong, of course. If they lead their life on this level of intelligence, an answer in their understanding could only be an affirmation of their stance, like Maria's story is an answer to Vinny's rambles. Any other answer then, however exhaustive and well-informed and educated and reasonable it may be (Duckphup, Chip. E fav) is simply a non-answer for him/them.

Since only the Matthewses and Marias seem to be able to give such an answer to Vinny, we can look forward to some more wasted bits and bytes by Vinny and his friends.

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell.
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read my below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

Greg writes:

"The fact is that none of you know if there is a God. You think there may not be, you may even be convinced there may not be. Well, how can you be so certain when you don't know."

Dear Greg -

Please consider:

1. If there is a god, there's no way that you can be sure he's the one you're worshipping. If Zeus, Odin or Allah happens to be the "real" god, you could be condemning yourself to a hellish eternity by picking the wrong horse to back.

2. You don't "know" that there is a god. You may believe there is a god, but you cannot know. Check the dictionary to learn the difference between believing and knowing.

3. In the course of human history - and most likely, all of history - an event has never occurred that needed the intervention of a god for that event to occur. I'm speaking of REAL events here - wars, weather, natural disasters - not myths and legends - virgin births, gods rising from the dead, etc.

4. There have been thousands of gods created by man over the course of human history. You believe in only one of them, and there's no way that you can prove that your god even exists in the first place. You are an atheist to about 999.99% of your being, that remaining .01% being the place where your "existence unprovable" god resides. Considering the odds, you're basically folding your hand to the atheists.

5. How can you be certain that there is a god when the only evidence for one are the words of scientifically illiterate sheep herders from 2,000 - 4,000 years ago? Would you go to a doctor who treated his patients with Bronze Age technology? Would you take your car to a mechanic who relied on miracles to fix your transmission? If not, then why would you rely on Bronze Aged writers for your view of the world?

David write: "So the books in the Bible that testify to the existence of Jesus are not considered to be historical records?"

Well... no. Oh, the early epistles of Paul are (not the later forgeries)... they tell of a Judaized version of the salvations cults that were a dime-a-dozen in that area, at that time. The thing is... if you read those epistles while pretenting that you know nothing of the 'historical' Jesus that is described in the gpspels, it wil quickly become apparent to you that Paul has not the faintest clue about the 'life' of Jesus. While you are PRETENDING not to know of the life of Jesus, you will see that Paul REALLY didn't know. The Christ that he talks about is a purely 'spiritual' Christ, that operated in 'heavenly' realms. The first time that the familiar 'Jesus' story pops up is AFTER 70 AD... in the gospel of Mark. And the gospel of Mark is NOT historical... it is fiction. In fact it is a series of vignettes, in the very famiiar 'suffering hero' archetype... Judaized with scriptural references to create the illusion of prophecies fulfilled. Matthew and Luke were written later... near or after the end of the 1st century... both using Mark as a template and adding 'sayings' of Jesus. The basic story-line is the same, because of the Mark link... and A LOT of the sayings are the same, because they came from the same source (the 'Q-document')... but the scenes in which the sayings are delivered are different... because those scenes are the independent inventions of the authors of Matthew and Luke. John was written near the middle of the 2nd century... and NONE of the gospels were widely known in the christian community until around the middle of the 3rd century. Oh... and if you add up all the 'Jesus-time' accounted for in the gospels (not counting the 40-days that he allegedly spent wandering in the desert)... well, it works out to no more than 3-weeks.

The authors of the gospels are unknown to scholars... except that they were most certainly NOT witnesses to the events that they describe. Christian apologists (they have a vested interest, you know. They call themselves apologists... I call them liars.) place the writing of the first gospel as early as 46 AD... but credible scholarship declares that to be nonsense.

David write: "There are many other extra-biblical writings that affirmed to His existence including some who were witnesses to His existence."

Well... that just ain't so. There are exactly ZERO contemporaneous extra-biblical writings that refer to Jesus. There are absolutely ZERO extra-biblical writings that bear witness to his existence. The ONLY writings which (allegedly) bear witness to his existence are the gospels... and I say 'allagedly' because they are (most likely) fiction.

The first reference to Christ in an account OUTSIDE of the bible is in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus... and he wasn't even BORN until 37 AD. Also, the reference to Jesus that DOES appear in his writings is regarded by MOST scholars and theologians as a forgery, perpetrated in the 4th century (maybe the 5th... I forget)... probably by the bishop Origen. (This is all extemporaneous writing here. I'm going from memory... so if my dates are off a little bit, please don't crucify me for it.) That case was thought to be closed in the beginning of the 1800s. Within the past few decades, though, a few scholars have been attempting to make the case that the Josephus account is not a TOTAL forgery, but rather an 'interpolation' by a 3rd century scribe. Also... it seems that the author of Luke cribbed some historical references from Josephus' history of the jews... which pretty much pegs the date of Luke's writing to about 96 AD, at the earliest.

The rest of the extra-biblical references came in the 2nd century and later... and they merely attest to the existence of christians. Tertulian... Justin Martyr... Pliny the Younger... and some later and lesser references.

David write: "Why is this not good enough evidence for at least His existence?"

Sorry... all of the so-called 'evidence' is 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best... and the best of the evidence is at least tampered with, if not a forgery in its entirety. The gospels' value as evidence depends upon their credibility. They tell fantastic tales of magical and miraculous events... they follow a well-known hero-story archetype... there is NO contemporaneous external corroboration... the book DECLARES that there were witnesses... but the book is self-serving and self-referential, with ABSOLUTELY NO external corroboration. A fiction declaring that the prophecies of a myth are fulfilled. Look... up in the sky... it's a bird... it's a plane... it's SUPERMAN! Yeah... witnesses.

The gospels include the story of a man physically ascending up into the air, into heaven... at a time when the sky was thought to be a solid crystalline dome... with heaven 'on the other side of the sky'. So... at a time when heaven was believed to be on the 'other side of the sky', the story was at least credible... if you believed in superstitious, miraculous BS... which everybody apparently did. But today... MOST of us know that the sky is NOT a solid crystalline dome... and that heaven is NOT on the other side of the sky. So... that kind of makes my BS alarm tingle a little bit. How about yours?

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell.
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read my below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

I'm a 54-year old white male who was a supporter of faith-based approaches to social issues in the 2000 election, chiefly because of the positive transformative influence I've seen religion exercise on individuals of violent, anti-social pasts, and because of the ineffectiveness of big-box liberal programs in addressing crime and other social problems. I also thought (and still think) that a case can be made for asserting that the development of individual and human rights in the 18th century is in part the result of transcendent values communicated to Europe by Christianity (even though that same Christianity also inspired appalling crimes against humanity), and thought that we needed to be more flexible in allowing private citizens to apply faith-based programs for the social good.

Now, however, seven years after helping put this president in the White House, I am ready to repent. For me, the turning point was the Terry Schiavo case, and seeing enraged monks, preachers and the truly frightening Randall Terry accuse the husband of murder. I realized that all that stood between that mob (and the president, governor and Congress who interceded for political gain) and a noose for Mr. Schiavo was the law, and that law had to be utterly and uncompromisingly secular in every respect, with no special dispensation or accomodation for religions, religious values or religious institutions. To me that means eliminating religion from all aspects of public life, from swearing on the Bible in courtrooms to tax breaks for religious institutions.

I think writers like Jacoby, Harris and Hitchens are providing a distinguished service to our country by engaging this debate. I'm not an atheist like they are, but their courageous rationalism is badly needed now, and is having a profound impact.

I'm a 54-year old white male who was a supporter of faith-based approaches to social issues in the 2000 election, chiefly because of the positive transformative influence I've seen religion exercise on individuals of violent, anti-social pasts, and because of the ineffectiveness of big-box liberal programs in addressing crime and other social problems. I also thought (and still think) that a case can be made for asserting that the development of individual and human rights in the 18th century is in part the result of transcendent values communicated to Europe by Christianity (even though that same Christianity also inspired appalling crimes against humanity), and thought that we needed to be more flexible in allowing private citizens to apply faith-based programs for the social good.

Now, however, seven years after helping put this president in the White House, I am ready to repent. For me, the turning point was the Terry Schiavo case, and seeing enraged monks, preachers and the truly frightening Randall Terry accuse the husband of murder. I realized that all that stood between that mob (and the president, governor and Congress who interceded for political gain) and a noose for Mr. Schiavo was the law, and that law had to be utterly and uncompromisingly secular in every respect, with no special dispensation or accomodation for religions, religious values or religious institutions. To me that means eliminating religion from all aspects of public life, from swearing on the Bible in courtrooms to tax breaks for religious institutions.

I think writers like Jacoby, Harris and Hitchens are providing a distinguished service to our country by engaging this debate. I'm not an atheist like they are, but their courageous rationalism is badly needed now, and is having a profound impact.

Well, short of the Book of Mormon, I don't believe I've read a more wordier piece than this one by Ms. Jacoby. Why is it that self-righteous atheists always seem to be as pompous as a Televangelist on a roll? Is it some sort of pre-requisite? Do atheists have one of those measuring sticks like at the amusement parks that say, "If your nose isn't this high in the air, you can't ride this ride"?

"It is fair to say that all religion originated in ignorance and tribalism" - How hyper-ironic this statement. In the long history of man certainly there must a statement more steeped in "ignorance" than this one, but it would probably take a while to figure out exactly which one it was. We can only assume , Ms. Jacoby, that you were actually there at the origin of "all religion", or perhaps you received a revelation from God?

"All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition." Excuse me Ms Pompous A$$ of the Year, but "laws of nature" as decided by precisely whom? The same bozos who were absolutely, positively certain that the universe revolved around the Earth? (And for those knee jerk reactors who will point at the Catholic Church and exclaim that it "was their idea!", you are wrong, the idea started with the Greeks and was part of the writings of Aristotle, who was hardly a Catholic.) Or perhaps those deep thinkers who knew for certain (this group includes such notables as Isaac Newton) that it was possible to turn lead into gold?
My point, Ms. Jacoby, is that your sentence is as bogus as most of the rest of your thinking. What you are really saying is that anyone who doesn't agree with the popular beliefs of the day are irrational, which sounds suspiciously like the religionists who used to burn folks at the stake. Those nut jobs justified lighting the fires based on the same reasonings, just different names; as they would ignorantly and self-righteously call it "God's Law", while you just change the term to "Natural Law".

The word ironic doesn't quite fit as a general descriptor in this case, but it is interesting how religious atheists are. As a group, they are just like the Baptists or the Catholics or Muslims in that they have their neat little club with bylaws and regulations and traditions, with various favorite mantras that are repeated ad nauseum, because the more repetition, the more (gosh, I guess 'holy' doesn't quite fit here) righteous they feel. As is often noted in detective work: No pattern is a pattern, and the principle can be applied to atheism. Atheism is a religion with a different God than anybody else has at the moment.

The fact is that for some strange reason, human beings are built with a NEED to worship something, anything. I wonder why that is? Without fail, a human being will worship something, be it a spiritual creature in the sky somewhere, or evolution, or science, or movie stars, or money, or sex, or (feel free to fill in the blank with whatEVER comes to mind). Please, Ms. Jacoby, explain that absolute need to worship something, anything, so obviously present in each and every person, from the basis of an atheist, and especially an atheist delivered into our midst by the grace of evolution. Please, explain how the need to worship something, anything, factors into the theory of "survival of the fittest".

No, Ms. Jacoby, I do not think of you as a "promoter" of atheism, because if you are you are one heck of a truck driver. Personally, if I were a religionist, I would make bunches of copies of your piece and hand it out as proof of the general emptiness of atheism.

As always, thanks for a well thought out piece, Susan.

There are many obvious reasons why humans would invent a god and try to convince other humans of the rules this god wanted us to obey. This has happened thousands of times in our short history.

But is there one good reason why a god would invent humans? I have seen no reasonable argument to suport homo sapiens being an "ultimate" species. No doubt tyrannosourus rex thought he was pretty cool too. In the same way, most religions seem to be about vanity and self-glorification, some more subtle than others (the chosen people, god loves me, my personal saviour, etc.) If god created life, then it seems pretty clear that we are little more than his work-in-progress, full of design flaws, saying and doing things that are mostly dumb.

As far as morals are concerned, I have generally found atheists and agnostics to be more fair, sharing, sympathetic, understanding and kind towards other people than those who hold strong religious convictions. If you have to believe in a reward in heaven or punishment in hell to motivate you to be good, then there is something fundamentally weak about your goodness.

There also seems to be a reverse correlation between a nation's well-being and the level of religious belief. Where there is an atmosphere of fear, there is strong religion. Where there is no fear, religion is less relevant. America today is pervaded and controlled by all kinds of fear. Contrast the situation in Scandinavia where life holds few fears, where the prison population is lower, where healthcare is freely available to all, and where life expectancy and the standard of living is much higher than here in the USA. Religion has little impact on life in Scandinavia today, but most Scandinavians are fundamentally decent and kind people.

Among the countries of the developed world, the USA is unique in the persistence of religion. The USA is fundamentally violent (with weapons to match), has little to no employment security and a healthcare system that perversely denies help to those who most need it (pre-exiting conditions!). I suspect there is a connection - the persistence of these problems cause religion to persist. I don't believe religion is the cause of violence; it's more the other way round. If we solved all these social problems the impact of religion would fade to a similar low level to that in other developed countries like Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Japan, etc.

This would be true progress.

Greg - I for one think folks are entitled to believe whatever suits them as regards the origins of the universe, life, the life beyond, and so forth. I would think and hope that most bloggers interested in theistic religion, non-theistic religion, or atheism are well aware that metaphysical propositions are not typically subject to proofs for or against - on the other hand, the skeptic will seldom convince the believer, nor will the believer convert the non-believer. In my experience atheists are more aware of the limits of metaphysics than most.

Bringing science into the mix just muddies the waters altogether, since the domain of science remains in the physical/material realm whereas the true domain of religion is the invisible, super-physical/non-material/spiritual realm. These realms may well exist but are largely unknown to science at this time (lest they be the quantum realm). Naturally, scientific theorums need to hold up under rigorous methods of proof or they get tossed. By comparison, this is not at all the case with religious doctrines, as an example. I don't know if the twain shall ever meet, but it won't happen easily or conveniently by any measure.

The point is, not all people need religion in their lives, and many prefer a life without religion altogether - the reason being, it serves no useful purpose. Or, it might even be actively offensive to some (as you can plainly see, for many reasons). Or, there are better or more satisfactory (non-religious) explanations for life's mysteries to the non-devout.

In my view there's never any good reason to argue about these issues u