Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prove it Mrs C Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Science has never proven that god even created
> > earth or us. It is all made up to make people
> feel
> > better about death. If there is a god why so
> many
> > different gods? Which god is the correct god? I
> > say prove it!
>
>
> Nor has science proven otherwise.
>
> You can believe that the entire universe came from
> a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously
> exploded into everything that exists with no
> answer as to where that ball of energy came from
> or you can believe that there was intelligence and
> purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to
> explain?

Actually there are more choices then that, however out of those two, obviously the one that posits the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the notion that a personal 'nothing' created something by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.


> You can believe that all living things on earth
> came from one cell that landed here from a passing
> comet's tail (plants, insects, mammals, amoebas,
> etc) or you can believe that things were created
> for distinct reasons as distinct beings to serve a
> purpose in a symbiotic world where all things seem
> connected. Which is easier to believe?

Again, there are more options. Again, we can appeal to the one that has empirical evidence behind it - which would be the first one. We have evidence of protocells and abiogenetic precursors. We have evidence of common descent. When we look at nature we can see the remnants of once useful organs that are no longer useful (such as the blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures were intelligently designed would put forth a designer who made it look like things evolved.

> You can believe that there is an ultimate
> authority of right and wrong, moral and amoral or
> you can believe that it is man and society to
> decide that. So which is better, the laws of God
> or the laws of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's China
> and Caligula's Rome?

Again, there are other options - however, I will point out that the God of the Old Testament is actually on par with Hitler's Germany.


> Man has warped and destroyed almost everything he
> touches when he tries to do things outside of the
> grace of God.

Are you being ironic?

Seriously, you type this on a machine that was built by man. You realize that modern man has made childbirth safer? That modern man has made the average life span almost twice as long as it used to be? That modern man has come up with ways to feed people through science?

> That includes worship and praise of
> God and the churches that become focused on works
> and things instead of worshiping God and
> encouraging their members to develop an individual
> relationship with God and live directly with Him
> and not through the church.

Personally, I look around and see advancement. I look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving women equal rights, and on and on as advancements towards the betterment of mankind. I look at how we are able to genetically engineer our environments to make more crops to feed more people.

I can't say how someone could look around and say that we are worse off then when our ancestors were squatting and shitting in caves.

> Lon had a sermon a while back on what science says
> are the odds of our world. I suggest that you go
> to their website and listen to it. If you can't
> find it, I would be happy to find it for you and
> send you the link. It might open your eyes to
> what science really says about God and how we can
> to be where we are.

Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be used to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show that there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God becomes superfluous.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Actually there are more choices then that, however
> out of those two, obviously the one that posits
> the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the
> notion that a personal 'nothing' created something
> by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no
> place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.

I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what you mean by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He is not a nothing, He is everything. You offer no alternate choice that is more viable than the two mentioned and the one that I did post is the current most popular amongst non-believing scientists. If you have something more current, then please post it.



> Again, there are more options. Again, we can
> appeal to the one that has empirical evidence
> behind it - which would be the first one. We have
> evidence of protocells and abiogenetic precursors.
> We have evidence of common descent. When we look
> at nature we can see the remnants of once useful
> organs that are no longer useful (such as the
> blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures
> were intelligently designed would put forth a
> designer who made it look like things evolved.
>

Please provide proof, not evidence, of common descent. Everything on the earth must exist here, therefore there will be a common thread that runs through all living things. That does not prove common descent. Micro-evolution is accepted by most people. Macro-evolution is a theory with no more evidence than the Theory of multiple universes. Probably less so as the theory of multiple spacial universes has some mathematical formulation behind it.


> Again, there are other options - however, I will
> point out that the God of the Old Testament is
> actually on par with Hitler's Germany.


I can not explain why God would destroy entire cities and cultures. I won't put Him on par with Hitler as He is all-knowing and all-seeing and Hitler was a despot, much like so many Godless societies have spawned.


> > Man has warped and destroyed almost everything
> he
> > touches when he tries to do things outside of
> the
> > grace of God.
>
> Are you being ironic?
>
> Seriously, you type this on a machine that was
> built by man. You realize that modern man has made
> childbirth safer? That modern man has made the
> average life span almost twice as long as it used
> to be? That modern man has come up with ways to
> feed people through science?

Does man invent good stuff? Of course. And like almost all things that he invents, inevitably it will be used to corrupt, destroy and tear down. That includes computers and the Internet. I am not anti-science, more pro-God.


> Personally, I look around and see advancement. I
> look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving women
> equal rights, and on and on as advancements
> towards the betterment of mankind. I look at how
> we are able to genetically engineer our
> environments to make more crops to feed more
> people.
>
> I can't say how someone could look around and say
> that we are worse off then when our ancestors were
> squatting and shitting in caves.


Agreed. Who is saying that?


> Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be used
> to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show that
> there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God becomes
> superfluous.

So full of the abilities of man. So full of the potential. What can't we do? Oh, so much. We can't force each other to love one another. We can't change a man's heart from evil to good. We can't provide a sense of comfort during great lose. We can't give unconditional love and forgiveness to the most wretched amongst us. We can't create something from nothing. When you have some proof that the Bible is full of lies or fairy tales, then what you post will be more relevant. If the odds of the earth existing as it does, supporting intelligent life as it does with the genome that humans have is 10 to the 27 million as biologists have surmised, perhaps it is not Christians who cling to a silly faith of something, but those who don't believe in God are the one's putting their faith in the unfathomable.

Not a sermon, just a thought ;o)

'Jaylow' wrote :
---------------------------
> "I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what you mean
> by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He is not a nothing,
> He is everything.

NOT ONLY IS HE "EVERYTHING", HE [God] IS EVERYTHING THAT WAS BEFORE
THE 3d-REALITY THAT WE EXPERIENCE, THE ONLY REALITY WE HUMANS KNOW.

DON'T LET 'PROFESSOR ASSGLOSS' GET YOU WORKED UP JUST BECAUSE
HE CANNOT WRAP HIS PEA BRAIN AROUND THIS CONCEPT.

THE DUDE IS SO OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY HANDICAPPED THAT HE IS NOT EVEN
WORTH ARGUING WITH ANYMORE.

*Professor Idiot-Gloss* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Jaylow' wrote :
> ---------------------------
> > "I am not trying to explain it. I don't know
> what you mean
> > by a personal nothing. If you believe in God, He
> is not a nothing,
> > He is everything.
>
> NOT ONLY IS HE "EVERYTHING", HE IS EVERYTHING
> THAT WAS BEFORE
> THE 3d-REALITY THAT WE EXPERIENCE, THE ONLY
> REALITY WE HUMANS KNOW.
>
> DON'T LET 'PROFESSOR ASSGLOSS' GET YOU WORKED UP
> JUST BECAUSE
> HE CANNOT WRAP HIS PEA BRAIN AROUND THIS CONCEPT.
>
>
> THE DUDE IS SO OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY HANDICAPPED THAT
> HE IS NOT EVEN
> WORTH ARGUING WITH ANYMORE.


Did I come across as worked up? Hope not. I wasn't. He can not shake what I know to be true. Won't be calling him names though as that would be counter-productive. Non-believers don't make me angry. I feel sad for them because they don't know the truth that is all around them. Kind of like The Matrix. There is a lot of Christian theology in that movie if you care to notice it.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > Actually there are more choices then that,
> however
> > out of those two, obviously the one that posits
> > the empirically verifiable - as opposed to the
> > notion that a personal 'nothing' created
> something
> > by acting upon nothing, in no time and at no
> > place. *THAT* is *not* an explanation.
>
> I am not trying to explain it. I don't know what
> you mean by a personal nothing.

Okay, so what, precisely 'is' God?

> If you believe in
> God, He is not a nothing, He is everything.

I thought God created 'everything' from nothing; ie, God created the universe via the big bang.

> You
> offer no alternate choice that is more viable than
> the two mentioned and the one that I did post is
> the current most popular amongst non-believing
> scientists. If you have something more current,
> then please post it.

There are a multitude of choices - M theory, an oscillating universe, a block universe, etc.

Any of them - even the theories out of favor (such as the oscillating model) are more substantial and preferable to "God did it" because they at least provide *some* explanation, whereas 'God did it' provides none.


> > Again, there are more options. Again, we can
> > appeal to the one that has empirical evidence
> > behind it - which would be the first one. We
> have
> > evidence of protocells and abiogenetic
> precursors.
> > We have evidence of common descent. When we
> look
> > at nature we can see the remnants of once
> useful
> > organs that are no longer useful (such as the
> > blind cave fish). Positing that these creatures
> > were intelligently designed would put forth a
> > designer who made it look like things evolved.
> >
>
> Please provide proof, not evidence, of common
> descent.

Proof is for math and alcohol, not science. Science is abductive, falsifiable, and inductive. Your request presents a strawman epistemology of science.

> Everything on the earth must exist here,
> therefore there will be a common thread that runs
> through all living things.

This is entirely vague.

> That does not prove
> common descent. Micro-evolution is accepted by
> most people. Macro-evolution is a theory with no
> more evidence than the Theory of multiple
> universes.

Macro evolution is speciation - which basically means microevolutionary steps over a long period. Logically if you accept microevolution, you have to accept macro evolution unless you can show a mechanism for stopping genetic isolation and speciation.

Further, you are using the term 'theory' incorrectly. In science, theories are explanation of facts and evidence. To say that a theory has no evidence is nonsensical.

> Probably less so as the theory of
> multiple spacial universes has some mathematical
> formulation behind it.

You mean 'model' here.

> > Again, there are other options - however, I
> will
> > point out that the God of the Old Testament is
> > actually on par with Hitler's Germany.
>
>
> I can not explain why God would destroy entire
> cities and cultures. I won't put Him on par with
> Hitler as He is all-knowing and all-seeing and
> Hitler was a despot, much like so many Godless
> societies have spawned.

So, one could theoretically excuse Hitler, since he's ignorant - what's God's excuse?

As to your comment on Godless societies, it seems the same with 'God filled' societies.

> > > Man has warped and destroyed almost
> everything
> > he
> > > touches when he tries to do things outside of
> > the
> > > grace of God.
> >
> > Are you being ironic?
> >
> > Seriously, you type this on a machine that was
> > built by man. You realize that modern man has
> made
> > childbirth safer? That modern man has made the
> > average life span almost twice as long as it
> used
> > to be? That modern man has come up with ways to
> > feed people through science?
>
> Does man invent good stuff? Of course. And like
> almost all things that he invents, inevitably it
> will be used to corrupt, destroy and tear down.
> That includes computers and the Internet. I am
> not anti-science, more pro-God.

Sounds like you are anti-science - you've already denied modern science (biology, at least, probably more) and you've said that he's warped/destroyed practically everything he's touched.

Things have gotten better - arm chair quarterbacking while living in one of the most successful societies the earth has seen and then complaining that mankind has corrupted/destroyed things is pretty weak. Yes, there is still plenty to be done, but again, look at how far we've progressed.

> > Personally, I look around and see advancement.
> I
> > look at the dissolving of slavery, of giving
> women
> > equal rights, and on and on as advancements
> > towards the betterment of mankind. I look at
> how
> > we are able to genetically engineer our
> > environments to make more crops to feed more
> > people.
> >
> > I can't say how someone could look around and
> say
> > that we are worse off then when our ancestors
> were
> > squatting and shitting in caves.
>
>
> Agreed. Who is saying that?

You seem to be.

> > Science is an empirical endeavor and can't be
> used
> > to 'prove' God exists. What it does is show
> that
> > there is nothing for God to 'do'. So, God
> becomes
> > superfluous.
>
> So full of the abilities of man. So full of the
> potential. What can't we do? Oh, so much. We
> can't force each other to love one another. We
> can't change a man's heart from evil to good. We
> can't provide a sense of comfort during great
> lose.

Yes, we are not perfect. Yes there is a lot to do.

Pray in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first. The only way to move forward is to actually work at it.

We have only begun to progress and the road is difficult. We *have* started to change man's heart from 'evil' to 'good'. Again, look at the morals of today and compare them with 1,000 years ago. Shoot, compare them with 50 years ago. We no longer have 'whites' only places.

There is still a long road ahead of us and we might not make it, but by *doing* the hard work we are making progress.

> We can't give unconditional love and
> forgiveness to the most wretched amongst us. We
> can't create something from nothing.

Neither, logically, could God. "Nothing" cannot be acted upon, which means an agent could not act upon it - no matter the skills of the agent. Further, it's not at all clear that 'nothing' is a possible state.

> When you
> have some proof that the Bible is full of lies or
> fairy tales, then what you post will be more
> relevant.

So we should assume it's true without regard to evidence?

Why does the bible get this treatment? Why not the book of mormon?

> If the odds of the earth existing as it
> does, supporting intelligent life as it does with
> the genome that humans have is 10 to the 27
> million as biologists have surmised, perhaps it is
> not Christians who cling to a silly faith of
> something, but those who don't believe in God are
> the one's putting their faith in the
> unfathomable.

This is the gambler's fallacy. It's also probably based off of bad numbers. In any event, even if the odds are long - they are still better then the alternative - 'magic'.


> Not a sermon, just a thought ;o)

If you say so, it sounded like a sermon to me. ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 10:26AM by Professor Pangloss.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did I come across as worked up? Hope not. I
> wasn't. He can not shake what I know to be true.
> Won't be calling him names though as that would be
> counter-productive. Non-believers don't make me
> angry. I feel sad for them because they don't
> know the truth that is all around them. Kind of
> like The Matrix. There is a lot of Christian
> theology in that movie if you care to notice it.


The guy you responded to is a troll. He looks for whatever excuse he can find to trash talk me and other posters. I wouldn't (and no longer do) take anything he writes seriously.

SORRY BUDDY, BUT YOU JUST ASKED WHAT GOD 'IS'.
SO HOW CAN WE TAKE ANYTHING YOU SAY SERIOUSLY, OR
EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE REST OF THE IDIOCY THAT FOLLOWS ?

YOU ARE SO STUPID, YOU THINK WE MUST DEEM GOD A "MAGICIAN"
TO RATIONALISE HIS POWER AND CAPABILITIES.

I AM A TROLL, AND YOU ARE A SIMPLETON.

'Professor AssGloss' wrote :
-------------------------------------
> "Neither, logically, could God. [create something from nothing]"

WOULD NOT CREATING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING, BE THE
TRUE TEST OF A GOD OR GOD LIKE ENTITY ?

> "Nothing" cannot be acted upon,"

YES IT CAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN GOD TURNS A
LACK OF SOMETHING-INTO SOMETHING.

> "which means an agent could not act upon it
> - no matter the skills of the agent. "

THIS IS JUST YOUR *UNFOUNDED* IDIOTIC OPINION.

> "Further, it's not at all clear that 'nothing' is a possible state."

'NOT CLEAR', LIKE NOTHING'S SUPPOSED INABILITY TO BE ACTED UPON ?







YOU LOSE.
FATALITY.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>A bunch of stuff.....

So basically, science proves nothing, just posits theories and runs experiments that neither prove or disprove but only eliminate other theories. That's quite convenient don't ya think?

You also post a lot of opinion to support your argument. You might think that oscillating theory provides a more valid theory of creation than God did it, but that would be an opinion.

Seems that most of your belief on this subject is based on faith. Faith in science at the expense of God. However, God and science are not mutually exclusive. Sir Issac Newton, considered by most to be the father of Physics and one of the greatest mathematicians in history was also a noted theologian and a man of great faith in God. Einstein believed in the existence of a god of harmony, who tied everything in the universe together and that a true God was beyond human's ability to understand. A recent study found that over 1/3 of scientists believe in a personal God who controls the universe.

So you are a person who doesn't. That does not make you right. Or smart. Or scientific. It doesn't make you a professor either. You may or may not be any or all of these things. But to dismiss the possible existence of God because you find other theories more to your own personal liking is not scientific but rather close-minded. However, you should find a home in the global warming community as your methods fit right in there.

This has gotten very off topic, but I suggest you look into St. Matthews United Methodist Church off 236 in Annandale. Extremely accepting and the new pastor, Denise Honeycutt, is phenomenal.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can believe that the entire universe came from
> a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously
> exploded into everything that exists with no
> answer as to where that ball of energy came from
> or you can believe that there was intelligence and
> purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to
> explain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Attachments:

For the individual that posted on the remarks from the ad, about homosexuality. I firmly believe that all homosexuals should be terminated and burned alive, I do not promote the lifestyle nor will I ever.I hope that you feel bad about posting, furthermore, I you should probably commit suicide, as you are a worthless homosexual and of no use to society! Die m.f. die...

All you need to know is what God did to Sodom and Gomora, its in the bible check it out. You can ignore the fact that you are a homosexual, but God will not bad homosexual, bad, bad...

Snapple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back
> ground_radiation


And this proves what? Again, where did this ball of energy come from and how does this dispel the concept of God creating everything in an instant. I don't see anything that answers either of those questions. Sorry.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >A bunch of stuff.....
>
> So basically, science proves nothing, just posits
> theories and runs experiments that neither prove
> or disprove but only eliminate other theories.
> That's quite convenient don't ya think?

Well, science can disprove things - this is known as falsification. As far as 'proving' things, no, it doesn't - since 'proof' is quite a high standard. We can be reasonably certain of scientific conclusions though.

As far as convenient, I don't know what you mean.

> You also post a lot of opinion to support your
> argument. You might think that oscillating theory
> provides a more valid theory of creation than God
> did it, but that would be an opinion.

You are confusing what I've said. I think it provides a better explanation, which it does. Unless there is some scientific model of creation that I am not aware of (which is possible). If so, please present it.

> Seems that most of your belief on this subject is
> based on faith.

?

I'm completely puzzled as to how you came to this - unless you are equivocating on the term faith.

> Faith in science at the expense
> of God.

This is a strawman. My reasons for rejecting "God" are not scientific, they are philosophical. If I couldn't accept *any* of the current science, I still would not be a theist because appeals to ignorance ('you can't explain X, therefore Goddidit) are unpersuasive.

> However, God and science are not mutually
> exclusive.

I never argued otherwise. All I've said is that "God did it" is a poor explanation, which it is.

> Sir Issac Newton, considered by most
> to be the father of Physics and one of the
> greatest mathematicians in history was also a
> noted theologian and a man of great faith in God.

So what? He also believed in alchemy. This is a misplaced appeal to authority.

> Einstein believed in the existence of a god of
> harmony, who tied everything in the universe
> together and that a true God was beyond human's
> ability to understand. A recent study found that
> over 1/3 of scientists believe in a personal God
> who controls the universe.

This is misleading. Einstein, at best, could be considered a pantheist. So following him with something about belief in a personal god is misleading since Einstein most certainly didn't believe in such. In any event, it's irrelevant. As to your numbers, please provide a cite.

> So you are a person who doesn't. That does not
> make you right. Or smart. Or scientific.

Ah, attempting to poison the well?

> It
> doesn't make you a professor either.

I'm going to seriously shit bricks if I have to explain my username again. Obviously you are not very well read in classic literature. Ponder that.

> You may or
> may not be any or all of these things. But to
> dismiss the possible existence of God because you
> find other theories more to your own personal
> liking is not scientific but rather close-minded.

Okay, this is a load of horse-shit.

1. I do not dismiss God because other theories are more convincing. I do not consider 'God did it' to be a theory. It is not. It is not an explanation, it's an appeal to ignorance.
2. Finding the current scientific models compelling does not mean I'm locked into them. I hold them tentatively, with the expectation that if there was a better theory to come along that I would examine it and accept it.
3. My reasons for rejecting God are primarily philosophical, I find the non cognitive argument very compelling as well as the argument from non belief and evil.
4. Again, you are attempting to shrug off what I've said in favor of an ad-hom. Instead of addressing anything I brought up, you've appealed to authority and tried to poison the well by suggesting that I'm close-minded and bias - without even knowing my position.

> However, you should find a home in the global
> warming community as your methods fit right in
> there.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't be up to speed on the science there either.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snapple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back
>
> > ground_radiation
>
>
> And this proves what? Again, where did this ball
> of energy come from and how does this dispel the
> concept of God creating everything in an instant.
> I don't see anything that answers either of those
> questions. Sorry.


You are confused as to the role of science. Can you prove God exists?

No, yet you do not reject God, right?

You hypocritically reject science, which yields reasonable conclusions, when it has more evidence behind it. My guess is that the moment you need science, you accept it. Like, say, when you attempt to rebut someone's argument on the internet. Or maybe when you go to the doctors. Then you can trust science. When it posits something you find unpalatable, that's when you cry and whine that 'science doesn't prove anything'.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are confused as to the role of science. Can
> you prove God exists?
>
> No, yet you do not reject God, right?
>
> You hypocritically reject science, which yields
> reasonable conclusions, when it has more evidence
> behind it. My guess is that the moment you need
> science, you accept it. Like, say, when you
> attempt to rebut someone's argument on the
> internet. Or maybe when you go to the doctors.
> Then you can trust science. When it posits
> something you find unpalatable, that's when you
> cry and whine that 'science doesn't prove
> anything'.


Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting science. I'm not even sure that you know what that means. I don't blindly accept something because a scientist says it, or even if most scientists say it. I reject that God doesn't exist because "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put forth.

This is a circular discussion at this point. We keep coming back to the same thing. You "believe" one thing, I believe something else. Since neither of us is able to provide anything that the other will consider proof, this can only lead to more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm right and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe you are right and lose everything if you are not.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting science.

You say that science proves nothing (as though it's supposed to), you seemingly disagree with evolution and the big bang.

> I'm not even sure that you know what that means.
> I don't blindly accept something because a
> scientist says it, or even if most scientists say
> it. I reject that God doesn't exist because
> "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put
> forth.

That is not what I'm putting forth and I've said this a few times. At best, science can show that God is superfluous. That's *it*.

> This is a circular discussion at this point. We
> keep coming back to the same thing. You "believe"
> one thing, I believe something else.

Well, I would agree that we keep coming back to the same thing. The fact is, you are misconstruing my position.

> Since
> neither of us is able to provide anything that the
> other will consider proof, this can only lead to
> more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm right
> and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe you
> are right and lose everything if you are not.

*sigh*, Pascal's wager.

Let's suppose we are both wrong, and the God's of the Egyptians are the proper gods. Then we are both screwed, right? Perhaps you are screwed worse for having the temerity for worshiping the wrong god.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jaylow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why do you keep thinking I am rejecting
> science.
>
> You say that science proves nothing (as though
> it's supposed to), you seemingly disagree with
> evolution and the big bang.
>
> > I'm not even sure that you know what that means.
>
> > I don't blindly accept something because a
> > scientist says it, or even if most scientists
> say
> > it. I reject that God doesn't exist because
> > "science" can not prove it, as you seem to put
> > forth.
>
> That is not what I'm putting forth and I've said
> this a few times. At best, science can show that
> God is superfluous. That's *it*.
>
> > This is a circular discussion at this point.
> We
> > keep coming back to the same thing. You
> "believe"
> > one thing, I believe something else.
>
> Well, I would agree that we keep coming back to
> the same thing. The fact is, you are misconstruing
> my position.
>
> > Since
> > neither of us is able to provide anything that
> the
> > other will consider proof, this can only lead
> to
> > more of the same. In the end, I believe I'm
> right
> > and lose nothing if I'm not, while you believe
> you
> > are right and lose everything if you are not.
>
> *sigh*, Pascal's wager.
>
> Let's suppose we are both wrong, and the God's of
> the Egyptians are the proper gods. Then we are
> both screwed, right? Perhaps you are screwed worse
> for having the temerity for worshiping the wrong
> god.


God is superfluous? That is hard to reconcile. Do you believe in the existence of God or not? Perhaps I have misconstrued what you were saying, but it seems to me that you are arguing that there is no God. If you aren't arguing that and instead just saying science does a lot of cool and interesting stuff, then we agree.

Just because the argument has been around for a while (Pascal's wager) doesn't make it less relevant. Sighing, while indicated snobbish dismissal of something, isn't much of an argument.

When someone worshiping Amun starts posting why their religion and god is relevant to this discussion, I will consider that in replying. Until then, that is a strawman. I was discussing God vs. no-God.

God accepts everyone so I will still be loved and brought into the light, right?
God made me who I am so I must be a mistake in your eyes. Only god knows. Good luck with that. I also have some swamp land in Florida for a great price.

OK, so the REAL scoop is, did anyone go to MBC when it was still held in the basements of some of the founders (who I might add, are all very well off, not from the Church but before that)? Because if you DIDN'T then it might surprise you that they believe in speaking in tongues and pretty much all of that old snake-oil-vendor crap. I am totally serious when I say these rich and supposedly educated people would like, sit around and babble incoherently, and then someone would say "Oh my! I think that was Aramaic!" or some such nonsense. I got the hell outta there before anyone started passing snakes or Kool Aid around! WEIRDOS!

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God is superfluous? That is hard to reconcile.

Maybe so, but that's not my problem.

> Do you believe in the existence of God or not?

I'm not sure how you can have any questions on this. No, I do not believe 'God' exists, whatever that is supposed to mean.

> Perhaps I have misconstrued what you were saying,
> but it seems to me that you are arguing that there
> is no God. If you aren't arguing that and instead
> just saying science does a lot of cool and
> interesting stuff, then we agree.

I'm saying both things - that science says a lot of interesting things and that I do not believe in God.

My reasons for not believing in god are mainly philosophical, *NOT* scientific.

> Just because the argument has been around for a
> while (Pascal's wager) doesn't make it less
> relevant. Sighing, while indicated snobbish
> dismissal of something, isn't much of an
> argument.

Sighing wasn't my rebuttal, pointing out that there was a multitude of religions BESIDES Christianity was my rebuttal. Pascal's wager is the poorest argument for God because after a moments thought two objections should come to mind:

1. It's not a simple 50-50 wager. There are other religions out there beside Christianity.
2. If God exists it's entirely insulting to believe that such a god would be fooled by someone 'just playing the odds'.

> When someone worshiping Amun starts posting why
> their religion and god is relevant to this
> discussion, I will consider that in replying.

So, because people don't believing in it, it's therefore false?

Seriously?

> Until then, that is a strawman. I was discussing
> God vs. no-God.

It's not a strawman to point out that there are something like 5,000 religions out there and many are mutually exclusive. Tell me, if you are a Muslim, will you get into heaven? How about a Zoroastrian?

If the answer is 'no', then it's not simply 'God vs. No-God'.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> My reasons for not believing in god are mainly
> philosophical, *NOT* scientific.
>

I would be interested in hearing your philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to parse those out of your posts.

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be interested in hearing your
> philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to
> parse those out of your posts.


I've mentioned two, but there are others. Let's start with the argument from non-cognitivism, which also gets meshed in with incompatible attributes.
--------

I wrote this up over four years ago and I think I need to expand on it a little.

What follows is a critical examination. It’s fairly long and probably not suitable for everyone. I’ve incorporated cites where appropriate and in some cases I’ve quoted a sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would have been able to. So I hope you’ll bear through the quotes.


Okay, I want to state up front that I’m by no means an expert on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider the best tomb on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick up the book “Atheism: The Case Against God†by George H. Smith. Additionally, I’m not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism. I do not denigrate religious belief nor do I find it ‘wrong’ in any sense. What I’m attempting to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism.

I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue, no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with. Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high, in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this is why the topic of God belief is an important issue. According to Michael Shermer:

“For the past two centuries American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today.†[1]

With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate. I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and in greater detail.

Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete and we can define them further if need be.

Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist. Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept.

Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist, affirmatively.

Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of the Gods they know of.

Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it is possible to know positively whether God exists or not. Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known through experience.

I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God, begins the discussion and the first argument for the non-existence of God.


Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel justified in asking the following question: Does God require faith? From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty. Now then, onto a bigger problem.

Defining God and the problems therein.

The very first question that should be asked before we can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what is the entity in question?

I think we can all agree that if the entity in question is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity; after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in? A mystery? An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?

In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words of W.T. Blackstone:

“Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.â€[2]

So without a foundation on which to rest a belief, that belief is by definition nonsensical. I think we can all agree on this. The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been many different definitions of God. Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God, such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were basically big magical ‘men’, so to speak, in that they were aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions, and other characteristics. For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by anyone here, and have been, for the most part, relegated to the dustbin of history.


The other versions of God that are often brought up are the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction, which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.

It is sometimes argued that God is ‘being itself’. I do not think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs the definition of what we already know with what we do not know in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none is warranted. If we say that existence or ‘being’ is God, then what is existence? What does ‘being’ mean? These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to the attributes of God.

As George Smith puts it:


“To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called “theist†or “Christian†is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “god†carries no metaphysical significance.†[3]

So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being, because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental axiom already.


To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition, but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world, it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.

Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:


“The first problem with the designation of supernatural (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive about a God. “Supernatural†tells us what a god is not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does not tell us what a god is. What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one? To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer….the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible. The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural law-a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific explanation-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence other than “natural†existence. “Natural existence†is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with “unnatural†existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like.“[4]

To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god and to apply limitations to god. Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical contradiction and do not hold. Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means that it can not possess determinant characteristics, these characteristics would automatically limit god to the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).


So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist, and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something. The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural. As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.

Ludwig Feuerbach said:


“To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually non-existent“[5]

What is there to believe in? What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses? The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Unfortunately this is not a proper answer, as this tells us what the God is not. These are not positive attributes. Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power. It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself, nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world. It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what human beings perceive. It is similar to the concept of ‘perfection’, in that it’s an ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality. The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections. God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn’t.

Francois Tremblay states:


“To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean.

Something is negatively defined when the identification critically lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not, instead of what something is. For instance, the following identification lacks specificity

“I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.â€

While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.

Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes. The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains to those specific attributes.

The following propositions can express this clearly.

1. The ball is red.
2. The sound is red.
3. The soul is red.

Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are made of material which can have colour, such as plastic. Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is meaningless, since souls are “supernatural", which means non-material. All we know is that the soul is not made of matter, but we do not know what it is made of. If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take. Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless.

If we look at the attributes given to the word “god", we find the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But as we have seen, “immaterial†is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.

This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer apply either. It makes no sense to apply attributes like “unicity†or “loving", or even “personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.

The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute, as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe. Gods have infinite powers, but the word “infinite†is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality.†[6]


All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.

With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity (God) the theist must first define the entity. The definition must include whether the entity is material or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc. Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails. An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist because that entity lacks specificity and is empty. A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms.


Works Cited:

1. Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (New York: Owl Books, 2000), p. 25.

2. William T. Blackstone, The Problem of Religious Knowledge (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 2.

3. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 35-36.

4. George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 39-40.

5. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, translated by George Eliot (New York, 1957), p. 14.

6. Francois Tremblay, http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/daniels1.html

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
much stuff.....

Hmmmm, not sure how much of this is philosophical. But, that being said: your argument seems to come down to the belief (perhaps fact) that God and His existence is beyond the comprehension of man and therefore, you can not believe in him and that, with all the other theories out there, you can not settle on Creation and God as the right answer or even on to really consider.

I recommend that you go to MBC for a few weeks and see for yourself whether it "sucks" and whether faith in God is more than just overcoming the over-analyzation of logic problems. It seems to me that your belief that there is nothing but us for no real reason other than to propagate the species is kinda sad.

'Jaylow' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I would be interested in hearing your
> philosophical reasons then instead of me trying to
> parse those out of your posts. "

'Professor Pangloss' wrote :
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I've mentioned two, but there are others.
> Let's start with the argument from non-cognitivism,
> which also gets meshed in with incompatible attributes."
--------

> "I wrote this up over four years ago and I think
> I need to expand on it a little."

> "What follows is a critical examination. It’s fairly long
> and probably not suitable for everyone. I’ve incorporated
> cites where appropriate and in some cases I’ve quoted a
> sizable amount of text because I feel the author has done a
> far more admirable job of explaining the concept then I would
> have been able to. So I hope you’ll bear through the quotes."

THIS SOUNDS BETTER THAN YOUR NORMAL PLAGARIST REGURGITATION YOU
ARE KNOWN FOR HERE ON FFXU !

> "Okay, I want to state up front that I’m by no means an expert
> on atheism or atheistic argumentation. If you want what I consider
> the best tomb on atheistic argumentation, then I suggest you pick
> up the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.
> Additionally, I’m not seeking to convert or sway anyone towards atheism."

YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE.

> "I do not denigrate religious belief"

YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE.

> "nor do I find it "wrong" in any sense. What I’m attempting
> to do is provide a reasonable justification for atheism."

THERE IS NO REASOABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR ATHEISM.
YOU KNOW IT, JUST AS WELL AS THAT FAT FAGGOT
"Theamazingathiest" KNOWS IT ON YouTube.

> "I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue,
> no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with.
> Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high,
> in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this
> is why the topic of God belief is an important issue.
> According to Michael Shermer:"

> "For the past two centuries American church membership rates have
> risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to
> 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60
> percent today." [1]

WHO THE FUCK CARES FAGGOT ?
THIS OBVIOUSLY BOTHERS YOU GREATLY ?

> "With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either
> against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the
> non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one
> at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate.
> I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel
> that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and
> in greater detail."

THANK YOU, OH GREAT PROFESSOR !

> "Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the
> purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete
> and we can define them further if need be."

>-"Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily
> a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist.
> Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept."

>-"Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist,
> affirmatively."

>-"Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any
> quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept
> of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of
> the Gods they know of."

*ALL* ATHEIST ARE RETARDED DOUCHE BAGS
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS WOULD HAVE SUFFICED, YA DUMBASS.

>-"Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes
> in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it
> is possible to know positively whether God exists or not."

SO AGNOSTIC = OXYMORON ?

> "Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known
> through experience."

> "I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-
> at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God,
> begins the discussion and the first argument for the
> non-existence of God."


> "Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel
> justified in asking the following question:
> Does God require faith?

GOD REQUIRES FAITH NOW, BUT ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, HE CAME HERE ABOUT TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND PERFORMED MIRACLES. SO HE DID NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE FAITH.

> "From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their
> believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based
> off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is
> justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty.

NOBODY EVER SAID YOU NEEDED CERTAINTY TO HAVE FAITH
OR THAT CERTANTY WAS A PRERQUISITE OF FAITH.
THEREFORE; CERTANTY IS A PERSONAL PREREQUISITE OF ATHIESTS
AND ATHEISM IS *UN-JUSTIFIED* BEING THAT THERE IS NO CERTANTY
IN THE BELIEF OF THE NON-EXISTANCE OF GOD.

GET IT NOW BOZO ?

> Now then, onto a bigger problem.

BETTER YET YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT WAS JUST FLUSHED
DOWN THE TOILET. AND YOU ARE HARLDY WORTH ME PRESSING
ON, BUT I WILL BECAUSE I LIKE LAUGHING AT YOU SO MUCH. :~)


> "Defining God and the problems therein.

> "The very first question that should be asked before we
> can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what
> is the entity in question?"

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN "ENTITY"
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOD -THE CREATOR OF EVERYRHING
TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC

> "I think we can all agree that if the entity in question
> is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it
> doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity;
> after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in?

BELIEF IN EVERYTHING AROUND YOU *NOT* BEING A FACT OF OR
BY-PRODUCT OF SOME IMPROBABLE IMPOSIBILITY.

> "A mystery?"

THE ONLY MYSTERY HERE IS;
WHY DUMBASS ATHIEST LIKE YOURSELF THINK
YOU ARE SOME KIND OF INTELLECTS.

> "An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?"

YOUR ATHEISTIC CONCEPT IS THE ABSTRACT ONE,
ONE WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS OR BASIS IN REALITY FOR THAT MATTER.

> In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words
>of W.T. Blackstone:

> "Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to
> accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would
> not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of
> a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting
> that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief
> constitutes knowledge.â€[2]

SOUNDS LIKE THE DUMBASS THINKS MUCH ALIKE YOURSELF.

> "So without a foundation on which to rest a belief,

(IN YOUR OPINION, DUMBASS)

> "that belief is by definition nonsensical."

THIS IS YOUR *UN-FOUNDED* OPINION !

> "I think we can all agree on this."

THINK AGAIN, DUMBASS.

> "The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of
> what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been
> many different definitions of God.

*ALL* RELIGIONS THAT BELIEVE IN *ONE* GOD, BELIEVE HE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME THING;
CREATING EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
I ALWAYS ASSUMED THIS WAS A SIMPLE CONCEPT, BUT APPARENTY YOU
ARE HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING YOUR HEAS AROUND IT.
NOT SURPRISING, TO SAY THE LEAST.


> "Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God,
> such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were
> basically big magical "men", so to speak, in that they were
> aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions,
> and other characteristics.

KEY WORD : "GODS"
TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC, YOU SIMPLETON.

> "For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for
> the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by
> anyone here,

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF IDIOT.
I BELIEVE IN THE FACT THEY ARE ANCIENT ACCOUNTS OF
OTHER-WORLDLY VISITATIONS TO EARTH.

> "and have been, for the most part, relegated to
> the dustbin of history."

MOST LIKELY, YOUR BRAIN IS IN THIS SAME DUSTBIN.

> "The other versions of God that are often brought up are
> the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but
> are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian
> /Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can
> be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax
> Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and
> omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God
> I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction,
> which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.

GOOD GOD, YOU ARE ONE SIMPLE-MINDED DUMBFUCK PANGLOSS.

> "It is sometimes argued that God is "being itself". I do not
> think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs
> the definition of what we already know with what we do not know
> in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none
> is warranted. If we say that existence or "being" is God,
> then what is existence? What does "being" mean?

WHY ASK WHY, DUMBASS ?
I KNEW YOUR IDIOCY WOULD NOT FAIL TO DISAPPOINT !

> "These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to
> the attributes of God."

SPEAKING OF NONSENSE, YOU ARE STARTING TO BORE ME.

> "As George Smith puts it:


> "To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept
> of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism
> and atheism.

KINDA LIKE BRINGING UP "gods" WHEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING "GOD" ?

> "If the so-called "theist" or "Christian" is willing to admit
> that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated
> to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “godâ€
> carries no metaphysical significance.†[3]

THIS DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY BACK UP THE DUMBASS POINT
YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE.

> "So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being,
> because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what
> it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing
> to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental
> axiom already. "

TO BELIEVE IN FAITH IS ANTI-BELIEF!
SEE, I CAN SAY STUPID NON-SENSICAL CRAP ALSO.

> "To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God
> is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition,
> but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed
> to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural
> laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world,
> it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural
> and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.

WRONG.
YOUR DEFINITION OF "SUPERNATURAL", CLEARLY
INDICATES WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.

> "Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:

> "The first problem with the designation of supernatural
> (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive
> about a God. "Supernatural" tells us what a god is

NO I DOES NOT TELL US WHAT HE "IS"
JUST TELLS US WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF.

> "not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does
> not tell us what a god is.

SO ?

> "What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? "

BIBLE SAYS JESUS COULD MAKE FOOD WHERE THERE WAS NONE BEFORE
AND TRANSMUTATE MATTER OR ELEMENTS LIKE WATER INTO WINE.

> In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one?

PREVIOUSLY STATED, SEE ABOVE POST.

> "To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with
> an answer….

UH DUUUUUUHHHHHHH

> "the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible."

I HAVE ALREADY CALLED YOU OUT ON THIS POINT, NOW YOU'RE JUST A LIAR.

> "The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural
> law"

CORRECT

> -a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific
> explanation

SCIENCE EXPLAINS HIM WHEN IT ADMITS GOD IS OUTSIDE OF SCIENTIFIC CONSTRAINTS.

> "-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence
> other than "natural" existence.

WE DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE THE CONCEPT IS SELF EVIDENT.

> "Natural existence" is a redundancy;

WRONG. PROFESSOR PANGLOSS = REDUNDANCY
(IDIOTIC REDUNDANCY TO BE EXACT)

> "we have no familiarity with "unnatural" existence,

REALLY ?
HOW ABOUT SYNTHETIC MATERIALS, OR SYNTHETIC ANTIBIOTICS
THESE ARE FAMILIAR TERMS OUTSIDE THE NATURAL WORLD.

> "or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like."[4]

THIS GUY IS AN IDIOT JUST LIKE YOU.

> "To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god
> and to apply limitations to god.

REDUNDANT INCORRECT MOOT POINT.

> "Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical
> contradiction and do not hold."

THIS IS JUST UN-FOUNDES UN-SCIENTIFIC OPINION.

> "Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means
> that it can not possess determinant characteristics,

THIS IS A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.

> these characteristics would automatically limit god to
> the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).

UNLESS HE SEPERATES A PIECE OF HIMSELF (JESUS)
TO CARRY OUT THE JOB. DUUHHHHHHHH.

> "So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist
> as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist,

WRONG.
JUST LIKE THE PIXELS ON YOUR TV SCREEN WERE THERE BEFORE THEY LIT UP TO BE THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN, BOZO.

> "and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something."

MY A-SPHYNCTER IS ROUND, THEREFORE IT EXISTS AMD MUST BE BROWN !

> "The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics
> and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural.
> As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with
> no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.

SPEAKING OF NONSENSE.

> "Ludwig Feuerbach said:

> To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying
> the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can
> not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually
> non-existent“[5]

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE IN DENIAL.

> "What is there to believe in?"

EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU.

> "What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses?"

THE MOST IMPORTANT WOULD BE THE GIFT OF SALVATION.

> "The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

GUESS MY REPLY DOESN'T FALL UNDER "STANDARD"

> "Unfortunately this is not a proper answer,

MUCH LIKE MOST OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS.

> "as this tells us what the God is not."

IT ONLY TELLS ME YOU ARE AN ASSWIPE.

> "These are not positive attributes."

TO BE RETARDED LIKE YOURSELF WOULD CERTAINLY BE
NON-POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES !

> "Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power."

WRONG.
IT JUST TELLS US THAT HE IS ALL POWERFUL
-NOT THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS TO HIS POWER IN *THESE* THREE DIMENSIONS.

> "It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself,
> nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world.

YOU ASK ALOT OF A SIMPLE WORD !

> "It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what
> human beings perceive.

YOU ARE FULL OF EMPTY STATEMENTS.

> "It is similar to the concept of "perfection", in that it's an
> ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality."

PERFECTION IS A PART OF REALITY, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PERFECT RATIO FOR COMBUSTION, -OTHERWISE NO BANG OR FIRE !

"The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections."

NOTHING FALLS EXCEPT YOUR IQ, YOU MORON.

> "God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn't."

CORRECT.
+1 internetz for you

> "Francois Tremblay states:


>"To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first
> to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean."

> "Something is negatively defined when the identification critically
> lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not,
> instead of what something is. For instance, the following
> identification lacks specificity

I'M SORRY BUT YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN BORED ME SO I DOUBT THE PROBABILITY OF YOU SAYING ANYTHING MORE RELEVANT THAN THE CRAP-FEST YOU HAVE WRITTEN PREVIOUSLY
SO I WILL QUICKLY READ THROUGH THE REST OF THIS GARBAGE.

> “I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.â€

> While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification
> tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am
> not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me
> being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient
> entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.

> Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as
> : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes.
> The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material
> it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only
> be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains
> to those specific attributes."

> The following propositions can express this clearly.

>1. The ball is red.
>2. The sound is red.
>3. The soul is red.

> Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are
> made of material which can have colour, such as plastic.
> Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the
>form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is
> meaningless, since souls are "supernatural", which means non-material.
> All we know is that the soul is not made of matter

INCORRECT.
THIS IS JUST YOUR UN-FOUNDED NON-SCIENTIFIC OPINION. AGAIN.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IF SOULS ARE HERE AS MATTER OR NOT, BECAUSE IF THEY
ARE MATTER, THEY COULD BE SO PHYSICALLY SMALL AS TO SEEM NONEXISTANT
OR NOT BE ABLE TO BE SEEN IN THIS THREE DIMENSIONAL REALM JUST LIKE ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT.
SO STFU, IDIOT.

> but we do not know what it is made of.

EXACTLY.

> "If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what
> attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take.

JUST LIKE A DUMB ATHIEST CAN *NOT* KNOW WHAT ATTRIBUTES GOD
HAS *BY DEFINITION*
YA DUMMY.

> "Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless."

YOUR LIFE SEEMS PRETTY MEANINGLESS.


> "If we look at the attributes given to the word "god", we find
> the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively
> defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it
> must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself.

BUT IF YOU ARE *OMNIPOTENT* AND DON'T ABIDE BY THE NATURAL LAWS OF
PHYSICS IN THIS DIMENSION, THEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS FALSE.

> "But as we have seen, "immaterial" is a negatively defined term.
> Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.

NO THERFORE THERE YOU IDIOT.
NOTHING IS "NEGATIVELY DEFINED" -EXCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR
FATHER WAS TOO POOR TO AFFORD A CONDOM.

> "This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the
> god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer
> apply either."

YOUR ATTITUDE MIGHT PROVE TO BE FATAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE
LONGEVITY OR EXISTENCE OF YOUR SOUL.

> "It makes no sense to apply attributes like "unicity" or "loving",
> or even "personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance
> of that being."

WE KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR BRAIN, SHIT !

> "The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the
> same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute,
> as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe.
> Gods have infinite powers, but the word "infinite" is negatively
> defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal
> beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether
> the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality." [6]

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT "Gods" AGAIN, DUMBASS.

> "All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent."

YOU ARE THE ONLY INCOHERENT ONE HERE, NOT THE GOD CONCEPT OR BELIEVERS.

> "If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief
> in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve
> probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out
> in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me
> (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried
> to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.

TELL THAT TO THE GODS !

> "With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity
> (God) the theist must first define the entity.
> The definition must include whether the entity is material
> or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc.
> Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural
> is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the
> universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails.

SO FAR, *YOU* ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE WITH AN ARGUMENT THAT HAS FAILED.

> "An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist
> because that entity lacks specificity and is empty."

KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THIS.
SOMEDAY YOU MIGHT BELIEVE IT.

> "A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms."

NO IT IS NOT,
AS YOU HAVE PAINSTAKENLY SHOWN US THROUGH YOUR IRRATIONAL-RATIONALISATIONS.


> "Works Cited:"

YOU MUST BE FEELING GUILTY ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES
YOU PLAGIARIZED OTHER PEOPLES WORKS ON YOUR COPY AND PASTE WARS.

THERE ISN'T ONE ORIGINAL THOUGHT IN THAT PEA-BRAIN OF YOURS
THAT IS NOT REGURGITATED NONSENSE.

LOAL !

Jaylow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> much stuff.....
>
> Hmmmm, not sure how much of this is philosophical.

It's a atheological semantic argument. An argument about language, which is part and parcel for philosophy.

> But, that being said: your argument seems to
> come down to the belief (perhaps fact) that God
> and His existence is beyond the comprehension of
> man and therefore, you can not believe in him and
> that, with all the other theories out there, you
> can not settle on Creation and God as the right
> answer or even on to really consider.

Kind of. It's more like how can you believe in something which is incoherent.

> I recommend that you go to MBC for a few weeks and
> see for yourself whether it "sucks" and whether
> faith in God is more than just overcoming the
> over-analyzation of logic problems. It seems to
> me that your belief that there is nothing but us
> for no real reason other than to propagate the
> species is kinda sad.

I know practically nothing about the MBC and I have not said that it sucks.

Also, as to my reason for living, which seems to be what you are getting at, it has little to do with my theological beliefs.

Troll, I didn't read your big mess of crap, but I did notice that you are attempting to say I am plagiarizing. Now, this could be for two reasons:

1. You are simply ignorant of what it means to cite your sources. The fact that I've placed material in quotations and then provided a citation at the end of the work is lost on you.
2. You are under the mistaken notion that I'm not the original author of this material simply because it's found on other places on the web. Perhaps you believe I don't have a yahoo account or was never a member of another forum. Maybe you believe that I magically appeared on FFX underground and that this is the only place I frequent.

In either case, you are mistaken.

You hit the nail right on the head. I have many feelings about MBC but if I state my view many get upset. Just like our political views. It is either black or white. (no pun)

MBC is in our area a mega church. I feel it more a SOCIAL outlet. If those who give money like that who I am to stop them.

I am so polite I would never say to another "prove your god". I would love to ask everyone to state why their one god is the ONLY one. Prove to me your "god" is the correct god.

Please tell me how if I pick the WRONG god I may rot in hell?

You cannot.

I believe in many things but your "gods" I do not.

Prove it to me.

to: the professor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You hit the nail right on the head. I have many
> feelings about MBC but if I state my view many get
> upset. Just like our political views. It is either
> black or white. (no pun)
>
> MBC is in our area a mega church. I feel it more a
> SOCIAL outlet. If those who give money like that
> who I am to stop them.

I have no problem with mega churches or with going to church as a social outlet. I don't have any knowledge about MBC so I can't really comment other then to make vague statements that could apply to them.

That said, if you are a Christian and your only reason for going to MBC is because of the social aspect then I think that you should probably find a better church. One that can satisfy *that* need as well as your religious needs.

> I am so polite I would never say to another "prove
> your god". I would love to ask everyone to state
> why their one god is the ONLY one. Prove to me
> your "god" is the correct god.

Which is why the internet is a great thing, IMO. I like these 'questions' and while I have brought them up to my friends, there's only so far you can go in those situations. The internet is different in this regard.

> Please tell me how if I pick the WRONG god I may
> rot in hell?
>
> You cannot.
>
> I believe in many things but your "gods" I do
> not.
>
> Prove it to me.


I hear this and I agree. I don't ask for proof - but if someone has a reason or evidence that they feel is compelling then I would like to know what it is.

ROFLMAO@ I am a troll you are a simpleton 8^)

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO@ I am a troll you are a simpleton 8^)


And?

So you can be reasonable in one post and not so in another. Do you honestly expect me to try to analyze every post to see whether or not it's 'the troll' posting? I don't care enough to and I have better things to do.

That said, it's completely sad that you are making up identities - one seemingly rational and the other irrational in an attempt to 'fool me'. Am I that special to you?

Seriously, why do you care?

Wow - first time I came across this site and the subject. I am sure that everyone has an opinion on every Church or place of worship to criticize. Not every Church that I have attended has met my needs but to go on line and be so critical is wrong - at least they are going to a Church - all of you who are on this blog are you actually going to Church or a place of worship? When the end is near I hope God forgives you.

Let's stop blaming Lon for sharing his views (right or wrong) that don't agree with your personal views. If you believe your good works or whatever will get you to heaven, go ahead. But please share with me how much 'good works' I need to make it? Is it like a "No Child Left Behind" system where every decent person gets in or is it like getting into an Ivy League University or being drafted by the NFL? Is there a minimum score for entry into heaven or is the grading system relative?

I'd rather believe Lon's message that entry into heaven in only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ's grace. If that concept proves wrong, we both will make it to heaven via the good works philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll be there! It is a win-win for me either way!

I once attended a funeral at McLean Bible for a 6 year old girl who was tragically killed in a recreational accident (I'm keeping out details to protect the family.)

Lon used the the packed house to preach intolerance of other religions and damnation for all but his sect. It was a pretty awful display.

Though you have to hand it to him. He's made a killing of his parishioners.

NASJAT

Re: McLean Bible Church sucks new
Posted by: Judy Abdul ()
Date: April 02, 2011 01:37PM

I'd rather believe Lon's message that entry into heaven in only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ's grace. If that concept proves wrong, we both will make it to heaven via the good works philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
--------------------------------------------------

HOLY SHIT!!! My jaw is on the FRIGGIN' GROUND!!

Just please, all you doubters and non-believers - PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT!!! THE TRUE CHRISTIANITY SPEAKING up there!!!!

It is so scary to think that viewpoint given by that poster is truly believed by them to be what Christ feels is right.

Jesus aint like that at all......................

Angel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the end is near I hope God forgives you.


That's the good thing with Islam, eventually Allah does forgive you and you get to go to heaven.

Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that concept proves wrong, we
> both will make it to heaven via the good works
> philosophy. But if it proves to be right...I'll
> be there! It is a win-win for me either way!


Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and you've just committed to working with Ahriman? That means that you are slated for destruction at the end of time.

Not such a win-win, is it?

So...tell me, what exactly is Christianity all about? I'm all ears!

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judy Abdul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > both will make it to heaven via the good works
> > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> right...I'll
> > be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
>
>
> Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and
> you've just committed to working with Ahriman?
> That means that you are slated for destruction at
> the end of time.
>
> Not such a win-win, is it?

I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman! I'm just comparing the Christian approach to getting to heaven with someone else who believes he can get there via good works.

I'm not going to fight with you to prove God's existence because you are free to believe whatever. Science simply reflects what God has done and made available. Science can't create life. In all the exploration and advancements, science can't travel outside of our little sliver of the universe. Would be nice if you'd open your eyes but whatever.

Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Judy Abdul Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > > both will make it to heaven via the good
> works
> > > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> > right...I'll
> > > be there! It is a win-win for me either way!
> >
> >
> > Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct and
> > you've just committed to working with Ahriman?
> > That means that you are slated for destruction
> at
> > the end of time.
> >
> > Not such a win-win, is it?
>
> I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman!
> I'm just comparing the Christian approach to
> getting to heaven with someone else who believes
> he can get there via good works.

I know you weren't, that's the point. You are presupposing your views are true, therefore your premise follows. The point is that you are begging the question.

Josh youareblind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not going to fight with you to prove God's
> existence because you are free to believe
> whatever. Science simply reflects what God has
> done and made available.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Please explain.

> Science can't create
> life.

So what? Science can't create storms on Jupiter, that doesn't meant that they are supernatural phenomenon. 500 years ago, science couldn't create a cell phone - does that mean they are miracles from God?

> In all the exploration and advancements,
> science can't travel outside of our little sliver
> of the universe.

Again, so what? 100 years ago, science couldn't get us to the moon. Let's suppose that science can never get us to Mars, how does it follow that God exists?

> Would be nice if you'd open your
> eyes but whatever.

It would be nice if you applied a bit of scrutiny to your beliefs, but whatever.

A reformulation of a common saying: It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to have it so open that your brains fall out.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judy Abdul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Judy Abdul Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > If that concept proves wrong, we
> > > > both will make it to heaven via the good
> > works
> > > > philosophy. But if it proves to be
> > > right...I'll
> > > > be there! It is a win-win for me either
> way!
> > >
> > >
> > > Um, so what if the Zoroastrians are correct
> and
> > > you've just committed to working with
> Ahriman?
> > > That means that you are slated for
> destruction
> > at
> > > the end of time.
> > >
> > > Not such a win-win, is it?
> >
> > I wasn't talking about Zoroastrians or Ahriman!
> > I'm just comparing the Christian approach to
> > getting to heaven with someone else who
> believes
> > he can get there via good works.
>
> I know you weren't, that's the point. You are
> presupposing your views are true, therefore your
> premise follows. The point is that you are begging
> the question.


You have to assume something is true (or false) before you can debate on it - if it is black and white, there is no discussion.

Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to assume something is true (or false)
> before you can debate on it - if it is black and
> white, there is no discussion.


In some sense yes (in the sense of basic axioms), however in this sense, no, since none of the premises are axiomatic - as I pointed out with my appeal to Ahura Mazda.

At least he's not preaching hatred and inciting violence, like some other leaders in the DC area!

Judy Abdul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least he's not preaching hatred and inciting
> violence, like some other leaders in the DC area!


I couldn't say - I don't know anything about his Church, which is why I haven't really commented on it.

Hey cool.Could you do that for the property of my tax preparer...
who works from his home in Mclean Va. Briar Ridge Rd. 1700 block
.Business name Estate Administration 22101 (think)

Funny thing is everyone likes to assume they are praying to their one and only God. Everyone else is wrong.

I am Agnostic. I like to keep my bases covered. Kidding aside I just believe in a higher being then myself. Plus you never hear of an Agnostic starting a war. We are the peaceful people.

Which God is the REAL god? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny thing is everyone likes to assume they are
> praying to their one and only God. Everyone else
> is wrong.
>
> I am Agnostic. I like to keep my bases covered.
> Kidding aside I just believe in a higher being
> then myself. Plus you never hear of an Agnostic
> starting a war. We are the peaceful people.


yeah, whatever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBPLeKMt1bw

For one thing, I think you have the street wrong. Also, I grew up in Mantua, and I don't think any of the houses there are worth $2,000,000.

I just want to put in my two cents--I think McLean Bible ROCKS! My child has grown up in the Access Ministry, and my family loves McLean Bible!

That rumor was debunked years ago. He lives in an average house in Fairfax and makes an average executive salary. And only part of his study break is vacation.

BibleChurch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard a radio ad late last night which basically
> said "everyone but us is going to hell". I really
> don't understand how 10,000+ people are suckered
> into joinging this gay-bashing, evolution-hating,
> ideology driven institution, but I certainly feel
> sorry for them.
>
> also, they cause too many traffic hangups on Rt 7

I used to like the radio show they did on Sunday mornings. I thought those were useful and inspirational.

All you people are stupid and mean spirited besides jealous, this is the dumbest thread i have ever seen.

It cheaper(no gas or collection plate money) and you can do it while still in your PJ's drinking a Bloody Mary.

Please do not actively proselytize me. I live in a multicultural world with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Aethiests. If a person has a religion it is VERY INSULTING to try to prosletize them.

How many of you Christians have accepted to offer from Mormoms to visit their church and evaluate their religion to see if it is better than your own?

And by the way which religion is correct? No really, absolute logic and reason dictates that two mutually exclusive ideas cannot be correct. How many people are simultaneously both muslim and Hindu and Christian and Jewish and aethiest.

So really, please answer which one is correct and which one's are wrong?

Is a quote from a text written 150 years ago or 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago or 10000 years ago proof? Is the Koran false? Is the Book of Mormon false? And what is God? Is it Zeus, or Vishnu, or G-d,or is there no god.

And who gets to state this "Truth"??? A pastor? An Imam? An Elder? Someone with an amazing persuasive personality.


Is questioning immoral? Is asking whether a latin translation of an Ancient Hebrew text translated into Engish is literal truth? Are these allegories or literal?

Is the answer that man is psychologically driven by the scientists interpretation that we were a pack animal and are biologically driven to be followers or leaders? Hmmmm... are there any countries that lack some form of a hierarchical leadership structure. Where is the pope and cardinals and priests and pastors and imams defined?

If your rebuttal is to find one or two innacuracies in the above as form of a proof then you have missed the concepts of logic, mathmatics, and reason. An argument is not proven by the exceptions. And guess what not all answers currently have answers. There was a time when people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. There was a time when electricity was not understood. To take the dramatic leap that these now everyday scientific understandings were from a Diety is a leap to the extreme end of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, people are not comfortable with not knowing why? Please read any anthropology text. Were the Chinese dynasties that were building civilizations 10,000 years ago supposed to know of a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Saxon, or any other Gods that would not even be thought of for thousands of years?

Also, the Easter rabbit is a Saxon Goddess, the eggs are a fertility symbol in that religion. The Christmas tree is Pagan fertility ritual, the tree is a male phallic symbol and the balls hung on it were representative of the female mamary organ.

A Jew with an open mind morals and believer of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"

Well,we are headed there right now and this will be our 3 rd time leaving our fellowship locally to go be with our daughter and son-in-law and grandchildren. I was amazed that at this mega church our grandchildren were nurtured happy to go,our family who has NO money to speak of was very well received. Here is the ONLY important thing, the son-in-law, he is now a child of the Most High King, Jesus. He is recognized by Pastor Lon by name,(who lead him to the Lord) which does amaze me but it is true. The truth
is preached and people respond to Gods word and are blessed I don't really care if he has a nice house, mega millions,as he says (I heard him on the radio for years before my daughter ever went) So what? I see a difference in the life of my child and her family because they have found Christ has changed the man they call husband and father . When we worry about money someone makes or cars they drive or where they live we are looking for an excuse to take our eyes off the only thing that matters, Christ the sacrifice made and freely given to us if we will only allow our hearts to open. I am crying, this applies to me too, and that is the Holy Spirit who loves us you too. Maranatha come Lord Jesus.

Prof. Pangloss,

I just now stumbled upon this thread and read a little of the ensuing debate, and I don't know if you're following it this long after the fact. I have to say, even though I'm a Christian and therefore disagree with your overall conclusion, I am incredibly impressed by your intellect, grasp of logic and apparently IMMENSE breadth of knowledge and background. I'm not dumb, but I would never want to face you in any kind of debate, it would not be pretty for me! You've managed to maintain a civil and intelligent debate in the face of a lot of stupidity in some cases.

Anyhow, for my ironic sign-off, "God Bless You" - ha

The McLean Bible Church is a wonderful church. It does not matter how big it is it matters if they preach from the Word of God (the Bible). The preachers have to preach and let people know what the Bible states. It is their responsibility and duty to let people know what it states. You go to the church for your own blessing and not to judge others. I use to be that way until I thought that my concentration should be on my Lord and Savior. That I wanted to get something out of the service instead of looking and judging others. I go to church now expecting the Lord to talk to me and to feel His wonderful presense.

Things changed in my life when I decided to go to church to get my own blessing and to concentrate on what the Lord has to tell me. When you go there you go to praise Him and hear the testimonies of others of what the Lord has done for them (miracles). Just remember that the Lord loves you and He will help you to see the Light. All good comes for the Lord and all Evil comes from the Devil. The Lord holds all power and the Devil comes to seek and destroy.

As for the McLean Bible Church's financial situation..the preachers are paid based on how many members pay their tithes and offerings...The preachers get a percentage of this amount. Is it so wrong for the preachers to have a nice place to live? Why can't christians have nice things? Are they to be poor? This is how the Lord blesses preachers...they are obediant in preaching from the Word of God. If you give your tithes and offerings to a church...then you will be blessed too because that is what His Word says. It is not that the Lord needs the money ...it is because of your obedience of the Word of God of what is require of us. I am sure that the preachers give their 10 percent tithes and give offerings to the Lord as well as everyone else. If they don't then they will not prosper or succeed.

Try to go to this church with a different attitude and you can feel His Love and His presence on you. You will get more out of the service if you do this. Praise Him and He inhabits the praise of His people. Sing the songs of praise and you can feel His presense. Your day will go much better for you and you can see and feel His presense and healing power if you would put Him first in your life and have a personal relationship with Him. The Lord is wonderful and He is my All.

I have been sick for 3 1/2 years fighting ovarian cancer which after a hysterectomy spread to other areas of my body (stomach, colon and 8 tumors in my pelvis, and also spread to my kidneys, lungs and chest cavity, etc!) I am only here by the grace of the Lord. The Lord has been with me every step of the way. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. He does not Lie. What He has done for others He will do for me or you. That is what His Word says. You just have to have Faith in the Lord and just try to believe that He is closer than your breath...That He Loves You. He will help you in all areas of your life. You do not have to feel sorry for christians we know where we are going. If you accept the Lord as your Savior then you will know too. He will direct your paths. You will be so happy. God Bless you and I will be praying for you and your salvation and to have a personal relationship with the my Lord. I Love YOU.

You've got cancer in all your major organs and 8 tumors , and you consider THAT the "grace of the Lord"?
If thats God's love you can have it.
And I don't feel sorry for you, you delusional freak.
Keep your blessings and your cancer to yourself.

Why would anyone believe anything on a forum like this? It sounds like a bunch of judgmental people with absolutely no proof for the absurd accusations. I used to have similar assumptions about mbc until looking into the matter myself. Everything couldn't be farther from the truth. Some people would rather make up their own truth though ... So sad.

Disclaimer that should be on every copy:
Attachments:

I've been to McLean Bible Church and have read it's mission statement. You may have misunderstood. The Bible clearly and simply put, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved (Acts16:31).regardless of race, color or ethnicity. In John 3:16' the Bible says that (God loved us so much, that he sent his only Son to die for our sins, past, present and future. If you confess your sins, and believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you become a child of God. Therefore, when you die an earthly death, you can be assured of an eternity spent in heaven with God and a family of believers. When pastor Lon Lon Solomon spoke of "we" being the only one going to heaven. He was speaking assuming that everyone listening was a believer already. There is complete freedom in true Christianity. Very simply put God loves EVERYONE, and desires them to know Him as their Savior.

Isn't that what Jesus said? Like... stop nickel and diming each other, just be neighborly and humble and kind, and do you? Loosely translated...

Do you want hot submissive chicks that will act all womanly and know their place and be a great wife or dumb liberal cunts like rachel maddow who will fuck you in the ass? I hope everyone says #1,

What kind of pastor takes the churches money and spends it laviashly. Example..he was in DC at a restaurant and spent 2K on dinner for 4 people...1K for a bottle of wine. Im pretty sure Jesus would be appalled. Why do those people stand for that. Cant someone alert the Post and spread the news on this guy

Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What kind of pastor takes the churches money and
> spends it laviashly. Example..he was in DC at a
> restaurant and spent 2K on dinner for 4
> people...1K for a bottle of wine. Im pretty sure
> Jesus would be appalled. Why do those people
> stand for that. Cant someone alert the Post and
> spread the news on this guy

Proof please?

The wait staff are friends and one is a member of MBC.

Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The wait staff are friends and one is a member of
> MBC.


That's what I thought. More hearsay and innuendo. Like the posting on his house that ending up being a lie. You got nothing.

So you want names, receipts etc? Not sure about the house but its easy to find out the value of anyone's property on line as well as whast the church is paying him such as the 800K figure quoted earlier. No crime was committed just outlandish behavior by someone who represents the Church. I dont fault the man we all make choices and in the end he will have to be the one to justify it.

What I'm saying is that you're just an anonymous nobody posting on an open forum where anyone can write anything they want. Post away. But don't expect to be believed by anyone except those who already believe Lon is evil. The rest of us see through it.

My only motivation is to expose this hypocrisy. I got this first hand from the waiter...he has no agenda either..just shock at the opulence. Im a Christian...I believe in God..before he told I knew nothing of this man or MBC. What are you truly afraid of..? Either you already know this and accept that a leader of church takes members donation designed for charitable works in Gods name for his personal extravagant use or your loyalty has blinded you. Its true Im just part of the faceless masses...another sinner doing the best I can.

Jack,

You friend, the waiter told me that he is trying to get you to spread lies about Lon Solomon because your friend, the waiter, really hates you.

See how dumb it is to think anyone is going to believe a post on an open forum. And then you call names and judge me because I question an anonymous post on an open forum and don't blindly believe it.

We have one man, Lon Solomon, who stands up every Sunday preaching to secular Washington DC and reaches tens of thousands a week in his services and ten times more than that with his radio broadcasts. Someone who has demonstrable works of his devotion. And then we have an anonymous poster who tells us his friend, the waiter, saw Lon Solomon spend too much on dinner.

I appear to have struck a nerve...my apologies. So why are there so many stories ref this man. And just for a moment assume my friend and 4 others were right. Do you think this is OK?

Dont be so naive...of course the man lives this life style..he has the wealth on Mclean behind him.....just like Jimmy Swaggert and cultish sects.....wake up people are hurting

Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you want names, receipts etc?

Yes, or you're full of crap.

The salary figure cited is completely bogus, he does not drive a luxury car, and furthermore, the unpaid Board of Elders determines his compensation, not himself. He doesn't have access to the church's finances to just take what he wants.

Also, MBC is anti-prosperity-gospel, so the rich televangelist comparisons are also invalid.

Jack Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you want names, receipts etc? Not sure about
> the house but its easy to find out the value of
> anyone's property on line as well as whast the
> church is paying him such as the 800K figure
> quoted earlier. No crime was committed just
> outlandish behavior by someone who represents the
> Church. I dont fault the man we all make choices
> and in the end he will have to be the one to
> justify it.


Give me the day and time. I can check against his calendar and find out if he had a dinner planned.

Yes, the Bible says that when all men speak well of you "beware." When Jesus Christ comes back to rule this planet, He won't ask how many people are politically correct, he'll ask if we spread the word that He loved us and he died so that we might have eternal life. It appears that people in this metropolis can worship who they want, say what they want, and believe what they want, but the first person who fixes their mouth to say that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, they are labeled as a "hater." Satan and witches can get respect, but Jesus Christ can't. What did he ever do to anybody? He loved them.

Im not going to get into a religious debate, but seriously its pretty sickening how all these anti religious people thinks its okay to just come and attack anyone who is religious. If you dont like religion fine, that is your personal choice, but keep it to yourself. You dont have to go out and attack people for having a belief in a higher power.

Religion when not manipulated by evil is a very positive influence on peoples lives that helps guide them through hard times and gives a good guide on how to live your life. Theres no need to go and attack people for believing in something.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im not going to get into a religious debate, but
> seriously its pretty sickening how all these anti
> religious people thinks its okay to just come and
> attack anyone who is religious. If you dont like
> religion fine, that is your personal choice, but
> keep it to yourself. You dont have to go out and
> attack people for having a belief in a higher
> power.
>
> Religion when not manipulated by evil is a very
> positive influence on peoples lives that helps
> guide them through hard times and gives a good
> guide on how to live your life. Theres no need to
> go and attack people for believing in something.


RIGHT, because religious folks NEVER push their views upon the rest of us. Our entire society is dominated by religious views. Religion can teach good messages but it is simply a moral code, the thought of a higher power having control on human life is a human construction with no proof whatsoever. Religion was started to and to this day does control the minds and money of the masses.

Religion is dumb. Religious people are tools. Science rules!

JBass Wrote:

> RIGHT, because religious folks NEVER push their
> views upon the rest of us. Our entire society is
> dominated by religious views. Religion can teach
> good messages but it is simply a moral code, the
> thought of a higher power having control on human
> life is a human construction with no proof
> whatsoever. Religion was started to and to this
> day does control the minds and money of the
> masses.


Our law system is based on religious beliefs get over it. You proved exactly what I was saying you cant just make a point without having to attack religion saying its just a money making scam. Only scientology is, their founder was quoted as saying he needed to start a religion cus thats were the money is before he started it.

And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont materialize out of a vacuum of space. Science can explain evolution and the big bang but it cannot ever explain how the material to cause all of that can to be in the first place. Theres no reason religion and science cannot coexist other than the fact that most science people refuse to allow religion too. If you dont want to believe thats fine, but religion has influenced everything in society and that will never change.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you dont want to believe thats
> fine, but religion has influenced everything in
> society and that will never change.



Maybe that's why society is so screwed up.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont
> materialize out of a vacuum of space.

What's your proof? Just because who can't explain what happened before the big bang doesn't prove there is a God.

Morning Star Wrote:

>
> What's your proof? Just because who can't explain
> what happened before the big bang doesn't prove
> there is a God.

Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point a higher power had to put the materials there. If there wasnt there would still be nothing everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did it is up to you.

Morning Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> seriously? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > And there is proof of a higher power. Things
> dont
> > materialize out of a vacuum of space.
>
> What's your proof? Just because who can't explain
> what happened before the big bang doesn't prove
> there is a God.

Exactly. Moreover, Im not saying that there is no "higher power". Truth be told, I dont have a clue. What I do know is that it does not control life on earth. A virgin cant get pregnant. Moses didnt part the red sea and there was no Arc. All religious text is nothing more than ancient fairy tales.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point
> a higher power had to put the materials there. If
> there wasnt there would still be nothing
> everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did
> it is up to you.

Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to a question, especially one like that, doesn't prove any answer. What you are doing is known as the God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a fallacy to argue the existence of God. God isn't the answer to questions that science has yet to explain.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly. Moreover, Im not saying that there is no
> "higher power". Truth be told, I dont have a
> clue. What I do know is that it does not control
> life on earth. A virgin cant get pregnant. Moses
> didnt part the red sea and there was no Arc. All
> religious text is nothing more than ancient fairy
> tales.


Allowing life on earth to progress with minimal intervention is just part of free will. Youre free to believe that didnt happen. Not everything is a fairly tale though. Some things are stories to get moral points across not everything is literal.

If someone believes it is all literal thats their right too. The point is people shouldnt be attacked for believing it. Religious freedom doesnt just mean people are free not to believe, it means people shouldnt be persecuted for their beliefs

Morning Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to a
> question, especially one like that, doesn't prove
> any answer. What you are doing is known as the
> God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a fallacy
> to argue the existence of God. God isn't the
> answer to questions that science has yet to
> explain.


Science cant explain it and never will. Things cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its really quite simple.

The same argument youre using can be used right back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morning Star Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Still explains nothing. Not having an answer to
> a
> > question, especially one like that, doesn't
> prove
> > any answer. What you are doing is known as the
> > God of gaps fallacy. You are relying on a
> fallacy
> > to argue the existence of God. God isn't the
> > answer to questions that science has yet to
> > explain.
>
>
> Science cant explain it and never will. Things
> cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its
> really quite simple.
>
> The same argument youre using can be used right
> back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.


I never said there wasn't. You claimed to have PROOF and you were wrong, you have no proof. Just an argument based on fallacy. Don't try to turn this on me. I never said I had PROOF that there was no God, all I was arguing was that your argument is weak.

But since you want to go there.....you say "Things cannot form out of nothing ever period." Ok, then what about God? Wouldn't God be something out of nothing? I am relying on your logic for this particular argument, as silly as it may be.

Relying on God to explain things we do not understand is a shortcut to thinking.

Morning Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Relying on God to explain things we do not
> understand is a shortcut to thinking.


Not at all. Thats not saying god made me sick cus you dont understand why you got sick that is a very legitimate point. As such a science man you should understand that science has proven time and time again things cant appear from nothing.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morning Star Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Relying on God to explain things we do not
> > understand is a shortcut to thinking.
>
>
> Not at all. Thats not saying god made me sick cus
> you dont understand why you got sick that is a
> very legitimate point. As such a science man you
> should understand that science has proven time and
> time again things cant appear from nothing.

Did you not read my post above the short cut to thinking post? I already addressed that argument but I guess you were just too lazy to read it. But I will entertain this argument further, but please read my all responses to you.

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as nothing, the vacuum is full of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. This has measurable effects, such as the Casimir effect, and is implicated in many areas of physics.

Morning Star Wrote:

>
> Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such
> thing as nothing, the vacuum is full of virtual
> particles popping into and out of existence. This
> has measurable effects, such as the Casimir
> effect, and is implicated in many areas of
> physics.


The casimir effect is based on reactions of things that exist within the vacuum creating a new thing from the lack of forces interacting. Things appearing out of nothing is by definition not a true vacuum if there is enough material there for that to happen.

Believing that things are really just appearing out of nothing is more far fetched then believing that a higher power created it. Science even admits they cant see those particals but they "know" theyre there. Im all for science but that is getting far fetched at at best is an effort to be a stop gap for a religion argument

Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> >
> > Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> > about religion? Not I. Religion is only an
> issue
> > because we have government-run schools. Take
> > government out of the equation and the issue of
> > religion is rendered moot. Those of you who
> like
> > the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> > children through "public" schools are
> responsible
> > for the fact that religion in the classroom
> even
> > has to be debated. Fucking morons.
>
> I call BS on that
>
> The vocal majority of people destroy public
> education in the US have always been, and will
> always be religious right wingers
>
> Who else is scared that other people's kids get a
> wide education which is not dominated by
> religion?
>
> By your argument the only reason why we have
> religion in the public classroom is because we
> have public classrooms
>
> If you don't like public education don't use it


I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a scam that sucks money from weak minded people.

Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and suffrage on their way to redemption. They don't subscribe to drive-through religion. The United Way (the charity) represents more religion (in practice) than the musical theatre of this pathetic version of a church.

Russian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a scam
> that sucks money from weak minded people.
>
> Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and
> suffrage on their way to redemption. They don't
> subscribe to drive-through religion. The United
> Way (the charity) represents more religion (in
> practice) than the musical theatre of this
> pathetic version of a church.


Number of minds changed by your anti-MBC ranting....still ZERO. No one has changed any one else's opinion on this thread. MBC is a mega-church that is growing. It is opening campuses throughout the region. Of the tens of thousands who go there, no one agrees with you. Sorry, but your screaming at yourself.

Everyone is touched by God and his Words stated in the Bible, in different and individualistic ways. Each experience is unique and different. None is the same.

REMEMBER...people see these post but, GOD knows exactly what you are going to post, type before you EVEN post. God knows your thoughts, motives, purposes, missions...okay?

PSALM 139

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Russian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > I am right AND McLean Bible Church is still a
> scam
> > that sucks money from weak minded people.
> >
> > Conservatives believe in a bit of sacrifice and
> > suffrage on their way to redemption. They
> don't
> > subscribe to drive-through religion. The
> United
> > Way (the charity) represents more religion (in
> > practice) than the musical theatre of this
> > pathetic version of a church.
>
>
> Number of minds changed by your anti-MBC
> ranting....still ZERO. No one has changed any one
> else's opinion on this thread. MBC is a
> mega-church that is growing. It is opening
> campuses throughout the region. Of the tens of
> thousands who go there, no one agrees with you.
> Sorry, but your screaming at yourself.

Scumbag,

May the Lord halt your preying upon and consuming the weaker goy population with your more meaningless version of invented Christianity. Yes you are correct that today's world is full of the new enlightened demoralized and more compromising suspects. You have been successful by dispelling the notion that Satan does not exist so few suspect your tactics and question your motives.

To hell Satan, Lon or whatever your name is.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Our law system is based on religious beliefs get
> over it. You proved exactly what I was saying you
> cant just make a point without having to attack
> religion saying its just a money making scam.
> Only scientology is, their founder was quoted as
> saying he needed to start a religion cus thats
> were the money is before he started it.

Ah, so that's why it took so long for women to have equal rights and for slavery to be abolished, because it was going against Biblical teachings.

> And there is proof of a higher power. Things dont
> materialize out of a vacuum of space.

Actually they do, quantum fluctuations, however the bigger problem with this statement is that, at bottom, you are appealing to ignorance. We don't know X, therefore God did it.

> Science can
> explain evolution and the big bang but it cannot
> ever explain how the material to cause all of that
> can to be in the first place.

If there was a 'material', and if presentism is true. These are two big assumptions which need to be shown, not asserted.

> Theres no reason
> religion and science cannot coexist other than the
> fact that most science people refuse to allow
> religion too.

I agree with this, loosely.

> If you dont want to believe thats
> fine, but religion has influenced everything in
> society and that will never change.

Astrology has influenced quite a bit too, you know.

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Things dont appear out of nothing. At some point
> a higher power had to put the materials there. If
> there wasnt there would still be nothing
> everywhere. Whatever higher power you think did
> it is up to you.

You say that things don't appear out of nothing. Fine, so what did God use to create the universe?

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science cant explain it and never will. Things
> cannot form out of nothing ever period. Its
> really quite simple.
>
> The same argument youre using can be used right
> back at you that you cant prove there isnt a god.


Right, science cannot explain some stuff, that doesn't mean we can just make up magic as a cause.

Further, again you are saying that things cannot form out of nothing - so what did God use?

seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The casimir effect is based on reactions of things
> that exist within the vacuum creating a new thing
> from the lack of forces interacting. Things
> appearing out of nothing is by definition not a
> true vacuum if there is enough material there for
> that to happen.

Perhaps the initial state was similar to a vacuum then? Further, all this tells us is that when it comes to something coming into existence, the evidence we have points to such an event being *causeless*. We have no evidence of something being caused to come into existence from nothing.

> Believing that things are really just appearing
> out of nothing is more far fetched then believing
> that a higher power created it.

Why?

> Science even
> admits they cant see those particals but they
> "know" theyre there. Im all for science but that
> is getting far fetched at at best is an effort to
> be a stop gap for a religion argument

This is incorrect - they have indirect tests for these things. They don't just 'know' they are there.

Pangloss,

In the end, it just keeps coming down to what YOU want to believe vs. what someone else wants to believe. You search the Interweb looking for some nutty scientific explanation for whatever conundrum you face and throw it out like it has any more credibility than what is in the Bible because it came from "a scientist". Your faith is scientific theories is understandable but it requires no more and no less faith to believe in a higher intelligence than some of the disjointed theories you post. It is no more silly to think you don't know something therefore God didn't do it than the reverse. Just so ya know