Thread: Does God exist?

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

I don't wrestle with the question at all. I just look at the world and see rape, murder, torture, animals suffering, destruction, childrens hospitals, disease, bombings, natural disasters, etc, etc, coupled with the total randomness of events and it leads me to believe that either God is dead or never existed.

There is no noticeable difference on Earth whether there is a God or not so I can safely say that my view of a no god universe is far superior to one who believes in God.

The reason you gave.... Man yearns for the eternal.... is the main reason that people cling to the hope that they were taught the truth.

Bettina

Originally Posted by Bettina

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

I don't wrestle with the question at all. I just look at the world and see rape, murder, torture, animals suffering, destruction, childrens hospitals, disease, bombings, natural disasters, etc, etc, coupled with the total randomness of events and it leads me to believe that either God is dead or never existed.

There is no noticeable difference on Earth whether there is a God or not so I can safely say that my view of a no god universe is far superior to one who believes in God.

The reason you gave.... Man yearns for the eternal.... is the main reason that people cling to the hope that they were taught the truth.

Bettina

hear, hear. i agree completely. we should abandon this question, and follow whatever beliefs we feel like.

P.S.- to administrators- do we need a religion topic in a science forum? it just gets filled with trash. almost no topics regard science at all. if it has another intended use, its not happening.

Originally Posted by chamilton333

P.S.- to administrators- do we need a religion topic in a science forum? it just gets filled with trash. almost no topics regard science at all. if it has another intended use, its not happening.

Since you posted this in a public thread, I figure I can interject my opinion.....

As long as religion invades public school science classrooms, then yes, we need a religion forum here. I left another forum because they dropped it.

This is just my opinion so please consider it just that.

Bettina

Jim C wrote:

Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind.

No, it isn't. It just indicates that we have bigger brain and more spare time to fantasize, that's all.

oh oh oh i know the answer!!
The answer is: No he never has never will never can.

The closest to a god can you see when you watch a mirror

Originally Posted by chamilton333

P.S.- to administrators- do we need a religion topic in a science forum? it just gets filled with trash. almost no topics regard science at all. if it has another intended use, its not happening.

This is one of the more popular sections of the science forum. And the real point is that if we do not have it then all the other sections of the forum get filled with "trash". It is abundantly obvious to anyone who has been a part of this forum for some time that we need a place to talk "trash".

Where else can Bettina express her repressed rejection of the existence of God. Where else can zinj, zelos, jeremy and others express their hostility to the Christian ideas of God. Where else can I push my metaphysics, or with daytonturner make some attempt at defending Christianity. Where else can we put the zany posts of visiting evangelists, so they can hear how we feel about their behavior, while we give them a chance to change their ways.

Originally Posted by Bettina

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

I don't wrestle with the question at all. I just look at the world and see rape, murder, torture, animals suffering, destruction, childrens hospitals, disease, bombings, natural disasters, etc, etc, coupled with the total randomness of events and it leads me to believe that either God is dead or never existed.

There is no noticeable difference on Earth whether there is a God or not so I can safely say that my view of a no god universe is far superior to one who believes in God.

The reason you gave.... Man yearns for the eternal.... is the main reason that people cling to the hope that they were taught the truth.

Bettina

WOW Bettina, you really do have too much of a negative view on the world. Yes there is all of that; but there is also love, compassion, charity, justice, honour and valour.

Originally Posted by Bettina

I don't wrestle with the question at all. I just look at the world and see rape, murder, torture, animals suffering, destruction, childrens hospitals, disease, bombings, natural disasters, etc, etc, coupled with the total randomness of events and it leads me to believe that either God is dead or never existed. - Bettina

You are assuming that God is meant to be loving compassionate and morally righteous. Bad assumption. There is a difference between Faith and Myth. For the most part of human existence God or the Gods were not meant to be worshiped out of love and enlightenment but instead out of fear and submission. Consider the possiblity that a deity is one whos very exsistence extends far beyond the scale of any mere mortal yet can still be just as petty jealous and spiteful as you or I. Given this medium of belief, there were also many, or at least stories of many, who chose to defy God or the Gods rather than to worship them. This is how the term "Hero", in it's most classical sense, came into being.

I value science. It is an effective tool. Like a swinging blade that is used to cut a trail through a black forest. I am aslo willing accept the possibility that there are many places, many destinatons, many discoveries within that forest that have yet to be reached. But under no circumstance would I blindly assume that these so called uncharted areas are of "Good Nature".

There's no sense in disregarding the hands-on might of rational thought in favor of some futile spiritual quest thats only real purpose is make one feel less pain. I don't want less pain and I have no desire to dilute the horrors of reality with some sort of faith-based drug. However, I will not dismiss something into nothingness simply because it exceeds my own personal De facto. And furthur more, I conclude that Most things in life, whether beast man or God, are vile and wicked.

As you say - rape, murder, torture ect ect...

Here is a quote from a film that i find relevant to this.

You see, no one's going to help you Bubby, because there isn't anybody out there to do it. No one. We're all just complicated arrangements of atoms and subatomic particles - we don't live. But our atoms do move about in such a way as to give us identity and consciousness. We don't die; our atoms just rearrange themselves. There is no God. There can be no God; it's ridiculous to think in terms of a superior being. An inferior being, maybe, because we, we who don't even exist, we arrange our lives with more order and harmony than God ever arranged the earth. We measure; we plot; we create wonderful new things. We are the architects of our own existence. What a lunatic concept to bow down before a God who slaughters millions of innocent children, slowly and agonizingly starves them to death, beats them, tortures them, rejects them. What folly to even think that we should not insult such a God, damn him, think him out of existence. It is our duty to think God out of existence. It is our duty to insult him. Fuck you, God! Strike me down if you dare, you tyrant, you non-existent fraud! It is the duty of all human beings to think God out of existence. Then we have a future. Because then - and only then - do we take full responsibility for who we are

Great quote!

Buddhists think similarly. Although they do not think God out of existence, they think He is irrelevant, if He ever exists.

Originally Posted by prasit

Great quote!

Buddhists think similarly. Although they do not think God out of existence, they think He is irrelevant, if He ever exists.

if he doesnt do anything here he can be no more than another bieng in another universe. nothing special

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God.

Why is it important to know if there is a god or not? Is that all there is, to ponder a deity's existence? The scary part is that people who are convinced God is there also know what He's thinking.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. .

Have you ever achieved or acquired anything of lasting value that did not require a struggle and a sacrifice on your part. Perhaps that is God's intention. We grow through meeting challenges, we blossom in the face of adversity.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. .

Ain't free will wonderful!

Strike down upon thee....

Originally Posted by leohopkins

WOW Bettina, you really do have too much of a negative view on the world. Yes there is all of that; but there is also love, compassion, charity, justice, honour and valour.

I see all that too, but the bad parts are always with me and get overwhelming sometimes.

Originally Posted by TruePath

Perhaps that is God's intention. We grow through meeting challenges, we blossom in the face of adversity.

Thats good if your one of the "We", but what about the ones who were sacrificed so you could blossom. Even Job ended up happy but his first family was killed by God. What about them.

Bettina

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

We really shouldn't call what flimsy evidence we have either way "proof"! That implies total, abstract Truth and there really is no such thing. We cannot even prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist. And you cannot prove he does!

Right?

So, why bother trying to prove something does not exist---or does exist?

Let me tell you what evidence I go by, as an atheist: I look back into human history and pre-history. I find the experts figure the early religions were based on animism---the belief that everything had a "spirit" that caused it to be and do what it did or does. As civilization built up, mankind found cause and effect explanations that did not have to involved internal spirits so society adopted polytheism, the belief in a limited number of gods representing forces.

Later, society developed to the point where just two or three gods was enough.

Now, we can explain everything through natural cause and do not need "gods" to explain anything. In fact, their very existence now has to be taken totally on faith.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Originally Posted by charles brough

...their very existence now has to be taken totally on faith.

Never a truer word was spoken.

charles brough,

Let me tell you what evidence I go by, as an atheist: I look back into human history and pre-history. I find the experts figure the early religions were based on animism---the belief that everything had a "spirit" that caused it to be and do what it did or does.

And what did these so called experts base their figuration on?
Do they realise that animism is the basis of religion, period, not just so called "early religion"?
And lastly, where is the evidence you spoke of?

As civilization built up, mankind found cause and effect explanations that did not have to involved internal spirits so society adopted polytheism, the belief in a limited number of gods representing forces.

What utter nonsense.

Later, society developed to the point where just two or three gods was enough.

LOL!! Which society?
Was there only one society back in the day?

Now, we can explain everything through natural cause and do not need "gods" to explain anything.

We can't explain everything through natural cause, that's jumping the gun a bit. Explanation of the universe is not the point of religion, it only offers various explanations for those persons who require it. The ultimate point of religion is to become self-realised in order to become free of material nature (liberation/salvation/saved/ etc...)

Jan.

charles brough said:

Now, we can explain everything through natural cause and do not need "gods" to explain anything. In fact, their very existence now has to be taken totally on faith.

OK, I have been trying to figure out how Chas. pronounces his last name. Possibilities:
1. Bruff and in rough.
2. Broff as in cough
3. Brew as in through
4. Brow as in bough
5. Broe as in dough

Unfortunately, I cannot think of any natural cause as to why this would be of concern to me nor any natural cause as to why any one of those possibilities is more likely than another. But I do agree that no matter what Chas. says is the correct pronunciation, I will take that totally on faith that he knows his own name better than he understands the concept of everything.

no

Originally Posted by Bettina

I don't wrestle with the question at all. I just look at the world and see rape, murder, torture, animals suffering, destruction, childrens hospitals, disease, bombings, natural disasters, etc, etc, coupled with the total randomness of events and it leads me to believe that either God is dead or never existed.

The old problem of evil argument. You must consider that God has the power to prevent this; however he has established rules to follow. If God does not follow these rules, he'd be contradicting himself. Furthermore, our foresight is not as complex of that of God's; therefore, we don't know what the purpose of these happenings is. Perhaps the existence of bad things has much more merit than their non-existence. One possible merit of bad things is the potential for good to exist. There is no way good can exist lest there is bad, for how can you say you've experienced something good if you've only experienced good all your life: there has to be a weighing mechanism to know what's good. For example, I can't say that saving someone's life is good if death doesn't exist. Thus, death is the weighing mechanism used to determine whether saving someone's life is good or not: did you kill several other people to save this one person's life? Did you risk your own? Similarly, bad is the weighing mechanism for good.

Originally Posted by Bettina

There is no noticeable difference on Earth whether there is a God or not so I can safely say that my view of a no god universe is far superior to one who believes in God.

How can you determine whether or not there is a noticeable difference on Earth whether there is a God or not? I assume that this is just a poorly worded statement (correct me if I'm wrong) and you're trying to say that there is no proof of God's existence, thus your views supersede those of the theists. In this case, you fail to see that insofar as there is no proof of God's existence save some speculation of experiencing God, there is no proof of his non-existence either. To further pull this argument, I must point out that the theist side at least has speculation to back up their argument; the atheists have nothing. The only thing the atheists can say is that science disproves religion, which is an inherently flawed statement. I myself am also a scientist (I'm a senior in high school, but whatever I've got background in science), and in no way find that science disproves religion. Yes, science finds answers to certain puzzles about the physical environment, but that doesn't say that the pieces of those puzzles were not put together by a deity of some sort. Theories about the physical can be disproven, but until death, theories about the metaphysical cannot (in which case the person is already dead, so s/he can't disprove the metaphysical anyway).

Originally Posted by Bettina

The reason you gave.... Man yearns for the eternal.... is the main reason that people cling to the hope that they were taught the truth.

Partly true. There are some people who cling to religion simply because they don't want to face the possibility that at death they no longer exist. I don't deny this; however there are people who cling to religion because of faith: because of a claim that they have before "experienced" God. Insofar as we are ignorant of this experience, we cannot declare it untrue. Others stick to it not because of faith, and not because of fear of death, but because of fear of hell, and/or because it's all they've known all their lives (a fear of change). Still others--myself--take the view of religion from a unique perspective. We look not only to the fear of non-existence, not only to faith, not only to fear of hell/change, but also to logic. We look towards truths which can prove at least the possibility, if not the truth, of the existence of God. So your claim that people believe in God simply because they yearn for eternal is a hasty generalization, if not a faulty conclusion.
______
I'm new to these here forums, btw.

Originally Posted by jan ardena

Do they realise that animism is the basis of religion, period, not just so called "early religion"?

Animism...the basis of religion? :?
I have to disagree with that. I in no way believe in animism; neither does any theist that I know.

spt wrote:

Furthermore, our foresight is not as complex of that of God's; therefore, we don't know what the purpose of these happenings is

Then there is no use trying to figure out what He wants and whether He has good intention. He is too complex for us, in the same way as we are too complex for a bacteria.

In this case, you fail to see that insofar as there is no proof of God's existence save some speculation of experiencing God, there is no proof of his non-existence either.

Correct. There is no proof that God, Ghost, celesterial teapot, spahetti monster, Voodoo, Hindu Gods, Greek Gods do not exist. So we should teach our children that ALL of them may exist. By the way, the Boogey man may also hiding in your son's closet (you cannot disprovie that either), so you should open the closet all the time, just in case.
If you cannot prove that something does not exist it does not mean that you must treat it as it exists.

We look not only to the fear of non-existence, not only to faith, not only to fear of hell/change, but also to logic. We look towards truths which can prove at least the possibility, if not the truth, of the existence of God. So your claim that people believe in God simply because they yearn for eternal is a hasty generalization, if not a faulty conclusion.

Please elaborate what kind of logic that support the existence of God. Is this logic particular to the Christian God?

Note that my arguments were simply in response to Bettina's Problem of Evil argument, and her statement that people believe in God simply because they want to exist forever.
That being said,

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

Furthermore, our foresight is not as complex of that of God's; therefore, we don't know what the purpose of these happenings is

Then there is no use trying to figure out what He wants and whether He has good intention. He is too complex for us, in the same way as we are too complex for a bacteria.

your statement that because God's foresight is far more complex than ours, he's too complex for us to try to figure out is non-sequitur. Moreover, your statement does not disprove the existence of God. Nor does it prove the Problem of Evil a valid argument. It was, in other words, an irrelevant claim.

Originally Posted by prasit

In this case, you fail to see that insofar as there is no proof of God's existence save some speculation of experiencing God, there is no proof of his non-existence either.

Correct. There is no proof that God, Ghost, celesterial teapot, spahetti monster, Voodoo, Hindu Gods, Greek Gods do not exist. So we should teach our children that ALL of them may exist. By the way, the Boogey man may also hiding in your son's closet (you cannot disprovie that either), so you should open the closet all the time, just in case.
If you cannot prove that something does not exist it does not mean that you must treat it as it exists.

1) I did not say that because you can't prove something doesn't exist that means that it exist. What I was simply saying was that the atheists cannot claim that God doesn't exist, because they have no proof. My argument is no proof-->unwarranted claim; not no proof-->truth.[quote="prasit"]
2) Several of the things you've just listed were obviously products of human creativity. There is proof that they don't exist (Greek Gods=admitted myths). As for the others (such as Hindu Gods), yes, there is no proof that they don't exist, and thus you cannot claim that they don't exist (I'm NOT saying they HAVE TO exist).

Originally Posted by prasit

We look not only to the fear of non-existence, not only to faith, not only to fear of hell/change, but also to logic. We look towards truths which can prove at least the possibility, if not the truth, of the existence of God. So your claim that people believe in God simply because they yearn for eternal is a hasty generalization, if not a faulty conclusion.

Please elaborate what kind of logic that support the existence of God. Is this logic particular to the Christian God?

1) Your statement/question is not relevant to what you quoted.
2) My reasons for believing in God includes the complexity of all beings/entities.
3) I am Christian, but I'm talking about God in general.

Maybe God is just (wisely) laying low. If it turns out he does exist, and somebody actually finds him, he's got some *serious* explaining to do. I guess nobody could ever prove God doesn't exist given that your average theist (and most philosophers) tend to measure there truth to an infinite number of decimal places. I'm not that exacting so if someone can offer real substantiated evidence that the existence of God is even half as likely as that He doesn't then I will happily accept it as a valid idea. Maybe the theists should take the onus for a weekend now and then and give the rest of us a break.

spt wrote:

It was, in other words, an irrelevant claim.

I have not intended that my statement is relevant to Bettina's claim. It is only relevant to your statement I quoted.

Several of the things you've just listed were obviously products of human creativity. There is proof that they don't exist (Greek Gods=admitted myths

Admitted by whom? There may be some people that still believe in them. You cannot prove that there is not anyone who does. So it can not be disproved.

My reasons for believing in God includes the complexity of all beings/entities.

So you are a believer of Intelligent Design?
I am a believer of evolution theory.

I am Christian, but I'm talking about God in general.

The Islam God is a better bet, if any. 9/11 is the evidence.

Originally Posted by prasit

Several of the things you've just listed were obviously products of human creativity. There is proof that they don't exist (Greek Gods=admitted myths

Admitted by whom? There may be some people that still believe in them. You cannot prove that there is not anyone who does. So it can not be disproved.

It is a historical fact that the Greek gods were myths, made up to try to explain natural phenomena. It is not, however, a historical fact that the Gods of established religions are myths. There are no people who still believe in the Greek mythical gods, though there are some people in some more or less isolated cultures who believe in gods similar to the Greek gods, in which case we still cannot prove those people wrong.

Originally Posted by prasit

My reasons for believing in God includes the complexity of all beings/entities.

So you are a believer of Intelligent Design?
I am a believer of evolution theory.

I do believe in evolution. I believe, however, that evolution was assisted by God. What people tend to overlook is the fact that atheism =/= science, and theism =/= disbelief thereof. Now my belief in assisted evolution may prima facie seem to contradict the whole Christian/Jewish idea of God supposedly creating the world (and mankind) in seven days. What we must look to, however, is that seven days may not be taken literally. Seven days may simply be to indicate seven steps. But that's a whole different debate altogether.

Originally Posted by prasit

I am Christian, but I'm talking about God in general.

The Islam God is a better bet, if any. 9/11 is the evidence.

I fail to see the relevance, and/or justification of this statement.
---------------
To address wonkothesane, proof of the possibility God's existence (though not a guarantee of his existence) lies in the fact of, as I've stated before, the complexity of living things/entities. I am a scientist/philosopher, and as such I think logically. The chances of atoms/molecules just spontaneously coming together to form complex organisms are extremely small. Thus, it's not logical to assume that all things were formed spontaneously. I'm kind of appalled to think that scientists would actually support this theory of spontaneity, especially after they disproved the whole idea of spontaneous generation. Even natural selection. Who decides what organisms should survive and what shouldn't? It can't be decided by molecules and atoms. Who's doing the selecting in natural selection? Of course there must be some being controlling such happenings. Yet some argue that the whole idea of a higher being is prima facie flawed. However there have been many strange happenings that can't be explained by simple science. I'm not suggesting that such happenings occur because of a higher being; rather, I'm suggesting that not all things follow physical laws (granted I'm in no way superstitious, and don't believe in the majority of things that some people claim to have experienced, but that doesn't matter). Insofar as there are things that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, there is a possibility of a divine being. Many philosophers (including Kant) have proven the possibility of a metaphysical world; still others (including the great atheist, Nietzsche) have not denied the possibility thereof. Keep in mind that I'm only speaking of the logical possibility of there being a God (as you've asked me to show at least some possibility), and am not asserting that God definitely exists, though I believe completely that he does based on faith and logic; neither am I in any way preaching or urging conversion.

But, to address general belief in the unseen, logic plays little part. Faith and experience also plays a part. If one is ignorant of the experience of God, or hardly had any experience with God--that is, not to say experience as in seen or heard God, but rather had a feeling of the presence of a divinity--one cannot truly say one fervently believes there is a God, but rather one can only say they believe there is a possibility of a God, in which case that person is agnostic.

spt wrote:

There are no people who still believe in the Greek mythical gods,

Prove it!

I do believe in evolution. I believe, however, that evolution was assisted by God.

Then it is not evolution as Darwin conceived it.

Seven days may simply be to indicate seven steps

As with other text in the Bible, it can be reinterpreted to fit the current facts of the time.

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

There are no people who still believe in the Greek mythical gods,

Prove it!

I do believe in evolution. I believe, however, that evolution was assisted by God.

Then it is not evolution as Darwin conceived it.

Seven days may simply be to indicate seven steps

As with other text in the Bible, it can be reinterpreted to fit the current facts of the time.

1) Well seeing as it is a well-established fact that the gods were false, it is logical to assume that people won't believe in them, though, as I've pointed out, there are people in isolated cultures who still believe in gods similar to those gods.
2) Regardless of whether its the way Darwin conceived it or not, that's just what I believe
3) That's the great thing about the Bible. It's just about as flexible as science is. There are always new truths and interpretations to come out of it; yet its base still stands: God created the world, God's chosen people are Jews, God sent his son to give non-Jews hope, God is coming back some day for the Jews and the people who accepted his offered salvation. Minor details can be interpreted and re-interpreted, but the main idea is universally accepted by Christians. The thing is there is no way that science can defeat the Bible, as there are always people like me who find parallels with science, logic, and the Bible. Don't you find that amazing? Regardless of whether you think its holy or not...even if you believe regular men created it, you have to admit those men must have been super-geniuses to create such an impermeable piece of work. People always specifically target the Christian doctrine, but they're always unsuccessful, especially since its a historic fact that Jesus did, in fact, exist; and was, in fact, crucified.

spt wrote:

That's the great thing about the Bible. It's just about as flexible as science is.

The basic premise of science is: Established theories can be challenged and revised, if new evidence show non-conformances. It is the expectation the more discoveries will refine or revise the current theories. The basic premise of Bible is: the words are sacred, hold on them until the evidence against them are overwhelming. At first God created the world, the person who wrote the Bible KNEW that God just popped the world up from the vast nothingness. Now we KNOW He did not even created the solar system directly. He had to create the Big Bang and let the nature took it course for 14 billion years.
The flexibility quality is not inherent in the Bible, it depends on the authority who interprets it. How long does it take the Church to make formal apology to Galileo?

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

That's the great thing about the Bible. It's just about as flexible as science is.

The basic premise of science is: Established theories can be challenged and revised, if new evidence show non-conformances. It is the expectation the more discoveries will refine or revise the current theories. The basic premise of Bible is: the words are sacred, hold on them until the evidence against them are overwhelming. At first God created the world, the person who wrote the Bible KNEW that God just popped the world up from the vast nothingness. Now we KNOW He did not even created the solar system directly. He had to create the Big Bang and let the nature took it course for 14 billion years.
The flexibility quality is not inherent in the Bible, it depends on the authority who interprets it. How long does it take the Church to make formal apology to Galileo?

Of course he created the solar system directly. If he was the one who caused the Big Bang, and the one who caused the atoms to fall in place (not to mention the one who CREATED the atoms in the first place), then he did directly create the Universe. Furthermore, it is still accepted that God created the Universe from complete nothingness. What do you think there was before the Big Bang; before the energy-centered void that the Inflationary Theory suggests? Before whatever else was there before energy? Complete nothingness. If we do not accept that there is a point where there was once complete nothingness (or non-existence of the physical world thereof), all we have is infinite regression. The flexibility quality IS inherent in the Bible. History in itself shows that the Bible is up for all kinds of interpretations, while, as I've pointed out before, it's fundamental ideas are universally accepted. The Bible even denounces following strict religion. I don't remember the exact chapter/verse/book, but it once specifically pointed out that faith is what Christianity is based in (though I personally factor logic into my beliefs), and insofar as it is based on faith, interpretation of The Word is relative.

You have interpreted the word directly differently.
For example: I was not created directly by God. He created me indirectly through a long line generations.

Anyway thanks for sharing your thought. From this perspective, the Bible will be accepted by all kind of men, good or evil, saint or satan because it can be interpreted in anyway the readers like to.

Originally Posted by scientistphilosophertheist?

Of course he created the solar system directly. If he was the one who caused the Big Bang, and the one who caused the atoms to fall in place (not to mention the one who CREATED the atoms in the first place), then he did directly create the Universe. Furthermore, it is still accepted that God created the Universe from complete nothingness. What do you think there was before the Big Bang; before the energy-centered void that the Inflationary Theory suggests? Before whatever else was there before energy? Complete nothingness. If we do not accept that there is a point where there was once complete nothingness (or non-existence of the physical world thereof), all we have is infinite regression. The flexibility quality IS inherent in the Bible. History in itself shows that the Bible is up for all kinds of interpretations, while, as I've pointed out before, it's fundamental ideas are universally accepted. The Bible even denounces following strict religion. I don't remember the exact chapter/verse/book, but it once specifically pointed out that faith is what Christianity is based in (though I personally factor logic into my beliefs), and insofar as it is based on faith, interpretation of The Word is relative.

so your either a living contradiction or a deist.?

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientistphilosophertheist?

Of course he created the solar system directly. If he was the one who caused the Big Bang, and the one who caused the atoms to fall in place (not to mention the one who CREATED the atoms in the first place), then he did directly create the Universe. Furthermore, it is still accepted that God created the Universe from complete nothingness. What do you think there was before the Big Bang; before the energy-centered void that the Inflationary Theory suggests? Before whatever else was there before energy? Complete nothingness. If we do not accept that there is a point where there was once complete nothingness (or non-existence of the physical world thereof), all we have is infinite regression. The flexibility quality IS inherent in the Bible. History in itself shows that the Bible is up for all kinds of interpretations, while, as I've pointed out before, it's fundamental ideas are universally accepted. The Bible even denounces following strict religion. I don't remember the exact chapter/verse/book, but it once specifically pointed out that faith is what Christianity is based in (though I personally factor logic into my beliefs), and insofar as it is based on faith, interpretation of The Word is relative.

so your either a living contradiction or a deist.?

I don't see where you inferred that.

Prasit: Ok, I interpreted the word indirectly incorrectly. But you interpreted the ideas presented (regarding God's creation of the world) wrongly. The Bible never said God just popped the world up from vast nothingness. It said God created the universe; didn't say what processes or anything (though it did say in seven days <steps>) or whether it was directly or indirectly. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth" does not imply direct creation.

I like how your last statement is just dripping with sarcasm (not to mention irony). You missed my point that the Bible still has its basic ideas despite different interpretations. For example if a person doesn't accept that Christ came and died for our sins <and> that we should be baptized, then that person is universally considered as going against the word of the bible.

"Does god exist?" - Only in the minds of those who choose to believe it does, outside that there is zero tangible evidence.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

"Does god exist?" - Only in the minds of those who choose to believe it does, outside that there is zero tangible evidence.

I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

spt wrote:

0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

Once a scientist has a hypothesis, he searches for evidence. If he finds it, then it support his hypothesis, it is more credible. If he does not, then his hypothesis is less credible, and he looks for alternatives.

If there is a hypothesis that cannot be proven, even theoretically, then it is no use. I have a hypothesis of an entity named MyGod. It does not interact with matter, nor energy. It just exists. But sometime it can affect with human brainwave, whenever it likes to, at the time that no scientists can determine causing a man to act a little strange, like biting his tongue. I cannot prove my hypothesis. But if I tell it often enough I hope that 2,000 years from now there will be a book call the Bible of MyGod. And the book will be full of words vague enough to allow flexible interpretation to fit the vogue of the time.

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

Once a scientist has a hypothesis, he searches for evidence. If he finds it, then it support his hypothesis, it is more credible. If he does not, then his hypothesis is less credible, and he looks for alternatives.

If there is a hypothesis that cannot be proven, even theoretically, then it is no use. I have a hypothesis of an entity named MyGod. It does not interact with matter, nor energy. It just exists. But sometime it can affect with human brainwave, whenever it likes to, at the time that no scientists can determine causing a man to act a little strange, like biting his tongue. I cannot prove my hypothesis. But if I tell it often enough I hope that 2,000 years from now there will be a book call the Bible of MyGod. And the book will be full of words vague enough to allow flexible interpretation to fit the vogue of the time.

Yes, I get what you're trying to convey. If there's no evidence, the argument isn't strong. But, even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.

even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.

isn't backed up AT ALL.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I don't see where you inferred that.

well you speak of the big bang, nothingness etc, and then you make statements like these "Bible is up for all kinds of interpretations, while, as I've pointed out before, it's fundamental ideas are universally accepted." and this "faith is what Christianity is based in (though I personally factor logic into my beliefs), and insofar as it is based on faith, interpretation of The Word is relative." and including your user name.

these lead me to conclude you were either a human contradiction, because science and religion are mutually exclusive, or a deist. (i dont have to explain what a deist is do I)

you go on to verify my conclusions in your later posts.

here,
I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

and here,
Yes, I get what you're trying to convey. If there's no evidence, the argument isn't strong. But, even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.

you cant be a scientist and be a theist, but you can be a scientist and be a deist, though it is extremely rare.
else you must be a human contradiction.

in reply to those two other posts.
the same can be said for santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist; it just means the idea of there existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume they do exist.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

"Does god exist?" - Only in the minds of those who choose to believe it does, outside that there is zero tangible evidence.

I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

Sorry, the evidence for the things you quote was always there to be read.
Eratosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the earth to within 2% of it's real value over 2200 years ago. Tell me what evidence did not exist, which does now, for any of these items?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

"Does god exist?" - Only in the minds of those who choose to believe it does, outside that there is zero tangible evidence.

I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

Sorry, the evidence for the things you quote was always there to be read.
Eratosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the earth to within 2% of it's real value over 2200 years ago. Tell me what evidence did not exist, which does now, for any of these items?

Hmm...I anticipated this response. There must have been a time (say, before Eratosthenes existed), when there was no evidence.

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I don't see where you inferred that.

well you speak of the big bang, nothingness etc, and then you make statements like these "Bible is up for all kinds of interpretations, while, as I've pointed out before, it's fundamental ideas are universally accepted." and this "faith is what Christianity is based in (though I personally factor logic into my beliefs), and insofar as it is based on faith, interpretation of The Word is relative." and including your user name.

these lead me to conclude you were either a human contradiction, because science and religion are mutually exclusive, or a deist. (i dont have to explain what a deist is do I)

you go on to verify my conclusions in your later posts.

here,
I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

and here,
Yes, I get what you're trying to convey. If there's no evidence, the argument isn't strong. But, even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.

you cant be a scientist and be a theist, but you can be a scientist and be a deist, though it is extremely rare.
else you must be a human contradiction.

in reply to those two other posts.
the same can be said for santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist; it just means the idea of there existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume they do exist.

Your fundamental error is revealed above. Of course you can be a scientist and a theist and a philosopher at the same time. There have been many in the past, and there still are today (myself included). What people like you with no true experience in theology do is assume that theists cannot think logically, and that science disproves religion. You have to get rid of this frankly ridiculous idea (see how I tied in science and religion in my previous posts). Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

"Does god exist?" - Only in the minds of those who choose to believe it does, outside that there is zero tangible evidence.

I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

Sorry, the evidence for the things you quote was always there to be read.
Eratosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the earth to within 2% of it's real value over 2200 years ago. Tell me what evidence did not exist, which does now, for any of these items?

Hmm...I anticipated this response. There must have been a time (say, before Eratosthenes existed), when there was no evidence.

Er... The evidence has always been there, there is no question of that.
There might have been a time before the evidence was correctly interpreted, I think you just made a poor analogy, the planets for example have always been visible - 4 of them easily with the naked eye.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

"Does god exist?" - Only in the minds of those who choose to believe it does, outside that there is zero tangible evidence.

I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

Sorry, the evidence for the things you quote was always there to be read.
Eratosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the earth to within 2% of it's real value over 2200 years ago. Tell me what evidence did not exist, which does now, for any of these items?

Hmm...I anticipated this response. There must have been a time (say, before Eratosthenes existed), when there was no evidence.

Er... The evidence has always been there, there is no question of that.
There might have been a time before the evidence was correctly interpreted, I think you just made a poor analogy, the planets for example have always been visible - 4 of them easily with the naked eye.

Ok, so my statement about the planets is incorrect. But you dropped my statement (despite the fact that you quoted it) that there was no evidence for the Earth being spherical before Eratosthenes. All evidence pointed to it being flat. Neither was there evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system; it was all speculation. And even if the people who were speculating had evidence, there must have been a time when there was no speculation; at that point there was no evidence, despite existence.

I'd like to know what 'evidence' there was that the earth was flat, and what evidence there was that the sun was NOT the centre of the solar system. NOw you have said "All the evidence pointed to it being flat" - explain please?

[quote="Jim Colyer"]I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. [quote]

Let's look at the possible answers from another perspective.

Let's say you had a friend who you continually asked not to do something.
But that friend continued to do the thing you did not like.

Eventually you would get tired of that friend, and probably not
answer their calls anymore.

When things happen in the world, you tend to get angry, which is
a sign of being powerless. Because the world is out of your
control.

Are we bigger than God? If his word requests that we do something,
and we do not; He stops taking our calls.

If you have ever wrestled with the thought of whether God
exists, then I think you already know the answer.
__________________________________________________ ______

Just a Thought

Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com

I think what sciphythe is implying is that even though there was a time when the prevailing belief was that earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, that fact that the evidence had not been revealed did not negate the actual fact of the matter.

In the same way, the fact that some people today see no evidence of the existence of God, does not preclude the possibility that someday, that evidence will be quite obvious to all. That is what the Bible predicts will happen -- every knee shall bow, every tongue confess.

Conversely, he may be suggesting that just because so many people believe in God, does not rule out the possibility that some evidence will come forth to preclude His existence.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I'd like to know what 'evidence' there was that the earth was flat, and what evidence there was that the sun was NOT the centre of the solar system. NOw you have said "All the evidence pointed to it being flat" - explain please?

First, let me point out that I didn't say there was evidence that the sun was not the centre of the solar system; just that there was no evidence proving this (not to mention that there was once no such notion).
Secondly, what people took as "evidence" that the Earth was flat was the mere fact that when one looks at the horizon, it appears as if there is nothing else out there; furthermore, when you're on land the earth seems flat. So from this evidence of flatness one could only conclude that the Earth was, indeed, flat, and if you went too far you'd fall off. So despite the fact that all evidence pointed to the Earth being flat, it was, indeed spherical. That supports at least the possibility of there being a God (if there were no evidence, as some people believe). Cross apply that to your last question.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I think what sciphythe is implying is that even though there was a time when the prevailing belief was that earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, that fact that the evidence had not been revealed did not negate the actual fact of the matter.

In the same way, the fact that some people today see no evidence of the existence of God, does not preclude the possibility that someday, that evidence will be quite obvious to all. That is what the Bible predicts will happen -- every knee shall bow, every tongue confess.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Let me remind you of what you actually posted...

"There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. "

Well there was always evidence the world was round, and the sun was the centre of the solar system, it is the same evidence interpreted later to conclusively to prove the fact(s).

As to god, I am not aware that there is any tangible evidence of it's existence, if you know of any then please bring it to my attention.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Let me remind you of what you actually posted...

"There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. "

1 Well there was always evidence the world was round, and the sun was the centre of the solar system, it is the same evidence interpreted later to conclusively to prove the fact(s).

2 As to god, I am not aware that there is any tangible evidence of it's existence, if you know of any then please bring it to my attention.

1) You in no way provide a warrant for this; we can't just assume you were right. Regardless, I think I see where your error lies. Your error lies in assuming that because the world was always spherical, there was always evidence that it was spherical. Keep in mind that there is no evidence until a person interprets it. If someone has committed murder, and no one found the bloody knife, that bloody knife (while in existence) cannot be called evidence. This example can also be cross-applied to my argument that 0 evidence =/= non-existence. Let's say detective Johnson speculated that the murderer threw the knife in a ravine, because he believes that's what he would do if he were the murderer. Assuming the person did throw the knife in the ravine, there is 0 evidence that a bloody knife is in the ravine, but there is one there. 0 evidence =/= non-existence.

2) You may find my ideas objectionable, but:
a. The complexity of living organisms, and tendency of atoms to combine in multiple ways. The whole idea that atoms had just combined by chance to form living organism makes no sense. Probability disproves this notion: there are so many naturally occurring elements that can combine in so many different ways that their combining to form such perfection on their own makes no sense. Atoms wouldn't just combine to form a computer: man had to do this. You may argue that it may take millions of years to happen, but it can. Stop and seriously consider this argument a while (and also note that organisms are way more complex than computers). Furthermore, there are substances in living organisms (can't think of any right now) that were formed by non-spontaneous reaction; that is, the reaction wouldn't have occurred if certain conditions were not met (a specific temperature, pressure, etc.). You're suggesting to me that these conditions were met by mere 'chance'. Granted some could have been, but not likely all.
b. Strange events (I'm not talking about people claiming to see this or claiming to hear that; I'm talking about highly publicized events). Look 'em up online. This may not be solid PROOF, but it is suggestive evidence.

The only evidence I have is that I have met Him. While I cannot tell you what He looks like or what He sounds like, I can tell you what it felt like when He revealed Himself to me and what it feels like to be in His presense. That is the only evidence that I can offer. Can you prove to me that you love your wife (if you have one)?

Evidence the the earth is spheroid occurs every 2-3 three years it is always there, the 'evidence' is then interpreted as proof, the evidence for the fact that the world is not a perfect sphere is the undulation of the land, these undulations do not suddenly appear when they are intrepreted they are there, they were always there, they were always evidence of the fact. What I suspect you mean is "they were not used, thought of, or recognised as evidence" that is very different and that I would agree with.

Dayton, you are convinced you met him, and you may even be convinced beyond doubt, but you have no tangible evidence, that is 'concrete' evidence. You have only anecdotal evidence, which science does not accept until a tad of the tangible is added. as a matter of interest you say you can tell us "what it feels like to be in His presence". Aren't you always in his presence?. As for me proving whether or not I love the lady, I am quite sure there's a physiological test since the emotion of love is physiological :wink:

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Your fundamental error is revealed above. Of course you can be a scientist and a theist and a philosopher at the same time.

sorry dont think so, how could you be trusted, I would never employ you as a scientist, you'd be to irrational, All that godstuff takes up alot of time and uses up alot of space in your brain that could be put to better use.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

There have been many in the past, and there still are today (myself included).

what like newton, I know of no others.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What people like you with no true experience in theology do is assume that theists cannot think logically, and that science disproves religion.

you make an assumption yourself, with the first part of this, how do you know what I know about theism, you dont know me. and yes people with faith cannot be rational, so how can they be scientists, science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You have to get rid of this frankly ridiculous idea (see how I tied in science and religion in my previous posts).

but it does'nt make them compatible, does it.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.

no need been there done that and brought the t-shirt, and yes you can be a pseudoscientist perhaps, or even an occult scientist

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Evidence the the earth is spheroid occurs every 2-3 three years it is always there, the 'evidence' is then interpreted as proof, the evidence for the fact that the world is not a perfect sphere is the undulation of the land, these undulations do not suddenly appear when they are intrepreted they are there, they were always there, they were always evidence of the fact. What I suspect you mean is "they were not used, thought of, or recognised as evidence" that is very different and that I would agree with.

I found the source of our disagreement. I'm speaking of evidence with regards to human experience; you're talking about evidence independent of experience. So to revise my claim: 0 interpreted evidence =/= non-existence.
In any case, we have no idea of whether or not there is uninterpreted evidence out there; thus, there is a possibility that there is evidence that there is a God, and thus a possibility that there is a God.

-----------------> For the purpose of not double-posting (as I saw Megabrain ranting against it in another thread), I'll just respond to Susan in this same post.
__________

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Your fundamental error is revealed above. Of course you can be a scientist and a theist and a philosopher at the same time.

sorry dont think so, how could you be trusted, I would never employ you as a scientist, you'd be to irrational, All that godstuff takes up alot of time and uses up alot of space in your brain that could be put to better use.

The mere fact that you state this makes me question your potential status as a good scientist.

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

There have been many in the past, and there still are today (myself included).

what like newton, I know of no others.

Proves my point (and disproves your above point).

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What people like you with no true experience in theology do is assume that theists cannot think logically, and that science disproves religion.

you make an assumption yourself, with the first part of this, how do you know what I know about theism, you dont know me. and yes people with faith cannot be rational, so how can they be scientists, science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational.

Well your wholly unwarranted assertions that a theist cannot be rational (and of course your contradiction when you said Newton was a theist) is enough for me to draw the necessary conclusions (granted you're not just playing around). And, quite ironically, this statement: "science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational" is as illogical as you can get. If science doesn't disprove religion, then how can it show it to be "wholly irrational"?

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You have to get rid of this frankly ridiculous idea (see how I tied in science and religion in my previous posts).

but it does'nt make them compatible, does it.

Actually, it does (if this ambiguous "it" is what I think it is) . Prove me wrong: warrant your argument.

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.

no need been there done that and brought the t-shirt, and yes you can be a pseudoscientist perhaps, or even an occult scientist

Actually, I believe you haven't (see your above Newton comment). Also, another great theist thinker you should probably look into is Immanuel Kant.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.

no need been there done that and brought the t-shirt, and yes you can be a pseudoscientist perhaps, or even an occult scientist[/quote]

Another good example is the Mathmatician and Philosopher Rene Descartes. He was one of the pioneers of modern Mathematics but also a pious Catholic. A lot of his work focused on trying to show people how the unfolding scientific world, which was thought as 'vast, cold and inhuman and mechanical' also had room for, 'God, freedom and the human spirit'.

I cannot see any real insurmountable problem with a theist being a scientist, Darwin, Newton in fact most of them (including Einstein) had some sort of religious upbringing in their early life. I know many theists, we mutually respect each others views, I would imagine the only difference between a theist and non-theist scientist is that one attributes the universe to 'chance' and the other to a deity, both equally eager to find out how it all works, whoever/whatever 'created' it.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I cannot see any real insurmountable problem with a theist being a scientist, Darwin, Newton in fact most of them (including Einstein) had some sort of religious upbringing in their early life. I know many theists, we mutually respect each others views, I would imagine the only difference between a theist and non-theist scientist is that one attributes the universe to 'chance' and the other to a deity, both equally eager to find out how it all works, whoever/whatever 'created' it.

however both darwin and einstein reject the irrational, but newton became more so.
my personal position is never the twain should meet.

and lucky Descartes was a deist, he believed a god created and then left us to our own devices.

and scientistphilosophertheist this statement "In any case, we have no idea of whether or not there is uninterpreted evidence out there; thus, there is a possibility that there is evidence that there is a God, and thus a possibility that there is a God." with that kind of logic it also means theres a possiblity that theres an allah, quezlcoatl, mithra, poseidon, or elves, orks, flying pink unicorns, any god or literally anything your mind can conjour up.

Geezer, I do wish you'd change your signature... I think 'muons' would be far more interesting...

Originally Posted by geezer

scientistphilosophertheist this statement "In any case, we have no idea of whether or not there is uninterpreted evidence out there; thus, there is a possibility that there is evidence that there is a God, and thus a possibility that there is a God." with that kind of logic it also means theres a possiblity that theres an allah, quezlcoatl, mithra, poseidon, or elves, orks, flying pink unicorns, any god or literally anything your mind can conjour up.

1) Pairing the idea of a God with the idea of a unicorn is ridiculous: it just makes the idea of God seem more unlikely since it's a fact that unicorns don't exist (same w/ elves and so on).
2) Yes, there is a possibility that there's an Allah or any God; I don't deny that, though I'm Christian.
3) If your mind just randomly conjours up something, obviously it isn't real. You KNOW it isn't real, since you made it up. And by your juxtaposition of this idea and the idea of "God", I'm inferring that you're assuming that God was something that a person's mind just 'conjoured up'. Note that when you assume (without a warrant) you're making an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'. How do you know its something a person's mind conjoured up?

How do you know unicorns do not exist? THere's a hell of a lot of unexplored universe out there...

There are images of God and images of unicorns, words about god and words about unicorns, and nothing else for either, indeed some people believe god exists, and no doubt some who believe unicorns do, there is as much 'evidence for either'.

megabrain wrote:

I would imagine the only difference between a theist and non-theist scientist is that one attributes the universe to 'chance' and the other to a deity, both equally eager to find out how it all works, whoever/whatever 'created' it.

I think 'laws of nature' is a better fit than 'chance' and 'deity' is equivalent to 'Intelligent Design'
For non-theist scientist, it is not about 'whoever/whatever created it', it is about 'whatever caused it'.

I think it would be:
Laws of nature vs. a deity and Chance vs. Intelligent Design

Megabrain,
I thought unicorns originated from Greek mythology. I am most likely wrong; don't know much about mythology. :?

I think 'laws of nature' is a better fit than 'chance' and 'deity' is equivalent to 'Intelligent Design'
For non-theist scientist, it is not about 'whoever/whatever created it', it is about 'whatever caused it'.[quote]

The laws of nature cannot explain modern inventions. If a man
is increased with wealth; people might refer to him as a deity.
A modern technology or invention was not made by chance.
What caused the individual to create the idea; was necessity
and inspiration.

That being said.

How then can you conceptualize what a deity is; without
representing the concept of God. Inspiration comes from
many sources. The greater needs of society, personal necessities,
and a dream. We have all rested on our laurel's, and taken these
things for granted. We do not drift aimlessly, and hope that we
can get what we need by chance. Or that something will come
up that will cause us to respond to a given situation. As with
yourself, many great scholars have compared this scientific
approach to God, Faith and Science.

The question is: Why?

Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com

:wink:

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Your fundamental error is revealed above. Of course you can be a scientist and a theist and a philosopher at the same time.

sorry dont think so, how could you be trusted, I would never employ you as a scientist, you'd be to irrational, All that godstuff takes up alot of time and uses up alot of space in your brain that could be put to better use.

The mere fact that you state this makes me question your potential status as a good scientist.

never said I was a scientist, but I do employ scientists.
but you most definitely would never be one in my employ.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

There have been many in the past, and there still are today (myself included).

what like newton, I know of no others.

Proves my point (and disproves your above point).

you obviously dont understand sarcasm, are you american. (newton did some good things, but he was a religious nut job.( he secretly delved into the highly illegal pseudo-science of alchemy (turning base metals into gold). Yet he was motivated not by a desire to learn the secrets of gold, but to learn the secrets of God. Sir Isaac's deepening religious convictions led to an abiding hatred for Catholics, whom he considered to be infected by the Antichrist. He even enjoyed reading accounts of nuns being tortured.))http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/763660
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...ic1822489.shtm

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What people like you with no true experience in theology do is assume that theists cannot think logically, and that science disproves religion.

you make an assumption yourself, with the first part of this, how do you know what I know about theism, you dont know me. and yes people with faith cannot be rational, so how can they be scientists, science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational.

Well your wholly unwarranted assertions that a theist cannot be rational (and of course your contradiction when you said Newton was a theist) is enough for me to draw the necessary conclusions (granted you're not just playing around).

see above reply.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

And, quite ironically, this statement: "science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational" is as illogical as you can get. If science doesn't disprove religion, then how can it show it to be "wholly irrational"?

because religion disproves it's self, you only have to read about it, all science/logic has to do is point out the errancys. it would be infantile for science to try to disprove that which has no proof.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You have to get rid of this frankly ridiculous idea (see how I tied in science and religion in my previous posts).

but it does'nt make them compatible, does it.

Actually, it does (if this ambiguous "it" is what I think it is) . Prove me wrong: warrant your argument.

it's really up to you to convince people you could do a job of science without your religion getting in the way. could you work in the abortion field, or stem cell research, etc... science is totally incompatible with religion, with the irrational in control of your head your worthless as a scientist.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.

no need been there done that and brought the t-shirt, and yes you can be a pseudoscientist perhaps, or even an occult scientist

Actually, I believe you haven't (see your above Newton comment).

already dealt with.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Also, another great theist thinker you should probably look into is Immanuel Kant.

and what Kant asserted is the exact same stuff you came up with in an earlier post, here,
I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

and here,
Yes, I get what you're trying to convey. If there's no evidence, the argument isn't strong. But, even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.


my reply to those two other posts, was.
the same can be said for santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist; it just means the idea of there existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume they do exist.

so where Kant states "no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife. But, then again, he added, no one could really know that there was not a God and an afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not." you can substitute anything you can imagine for god, and it would be equally valid.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by geezer

scientistphilosophertheist this statement "In any case, we have no idea of whether or not there is uninterpreted evidence out there; thus, there is a possibility that there is evidence that there is a God, and thus a possibility that there is a God." with that kind of logic it also means theres a possiblity that theres an allah, quezlcoatl, mithra, poseidon, or elves, orks, flying pink unicorns, any god or literally anything your mind can conjour up.

1) Pairing the idea of a God with the idea of a unicorn is ridiculous:

how so, both are supernatural, both are mythical, where lies the difference, explain.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

it just makes the idea of God seem more unlikely since it's a fact that unicorns don't exist (same w/ elves and so on).

exactly, well done.(common sense wins out once again)

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2) Yes, there is a possibility that there's an Allah or any God; I don't deny that, though I'm Christian.

well you should, as anything posited as a god by the ancients, is just as possible, as your god, here take your pick, there's quite a few to choose from. http://www.godchecker.com/

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

3) If your mind just randomly conjours up something, obviously it isn't real. You KNOW it isn't real, since you made it up. And by your juxtaposition of this idea and the idea of "God", I'm inferring that you're assuming that God was something that a person's mind just 'conjoured up'.

sorry no assumption here, all gods are figments of the imagination, you just have to study history and culture to gather that.
there really is no need to assume anything, just use you sense, reason, and intellect, and you too can discern what is true.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

How do you know its something a person's mind conjoured up?

well isn't it, please explain how it isn't thank you.

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Your fundamental error is revealed above. Of course you can be a scientist and a theist and a philosopher at the same time.

sorry dont think so, how could you be trusted, I would never employ you as a scientist, you'd be to irrational, All that godstuff takes up alot of time and uses up alot of space in your brain that could be put to better use.

The mere fact that you state this makes me question your potential status as a good scientist.

1never said I was a scientist, but I do employ scientists.
but you most definitely would never be one in my employ.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

There have been many in the past, and there still are today (myself included).

what like newton, I know of no others.

Proves my point (and disproves your above point).

2 you obviously dont understand sarcasm, are you american. (newton did some good things, but he was a religious nut job.( he secretly delved into the highly illegal pseudo-science of alchemy (turning base metals into gold). Yet he was motivated not by a desire to learn the secrets of gold, but to learn the secrets of God. Sir Isaac's deepening religious convictions led to an abiding hatred for Catholics, whom he considered to be infected by the Antichrist. He even enjoyed reading accounts of nuns being tortured.))http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/763660
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...ic1822489.shtm

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What people like you with no true experience in theology do is assume that theists cannot think logically, and that science disproves religion.

you make an assumption yourself, with the first part of this, how do you know what I know about theism, you dont know me. and yes people with faith cannot be rational, so how can they be scientists, science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational.

Well your wholly unwarranted assertions that a theist cannot be rational (and of course your contradiction when you said Newton was a theist) is enough for me to draw the necessary conclusions (granted you're not just playing around).

3see above reply.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

And, quite ironically, this statement: "science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational" is as illogical as you can get. If science doesn't disprove religion, then how can it show it to be "wholly irrational"?

4because religion disproves it's self, you only have to read about it, all science/logic has to do is point out the errancys. it would be infantile for science to try to disprove that which has no proof.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You have to get rid of this frankly ridiculous idea (see how I tied in science and religion in my previous posts).

but it does'nt make them compatible, does it.

Actually, it does (if this ambiguous "it" is what I think it is) . Prove me wrong: warrant your argument.

5it's really up to you to convince people you could do a job of science without your religion getting in the way. could you work in the abortion field, or stem cell research, etc... science is totally incompatible with religion, with the irrational in control of your head your worthless as a scientist.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.

no need been there done that and brought the t-shirt, and yes you can be a pseudoscientist perhaps, or even an occult scientist

Actually, I believe you haven't (see your above Newton comment).

6 already dealt with.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Also, another great theist thinker you should probably look into is Immanuel Kant.

7 and what Kant asserted is the exact same stuff you came up with in an earlier post, here,
I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?

and here,
Yes, I get what you're trying to convey. If there's no evidence, the argument isn't strong. But, even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.


my reply to those two other posts, was.
the same can be said for santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist; it just means the idea of there existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume they do exist.

so where Kant states "no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife. But, then again, he added, no one could really know that there was not a God and an afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not." you can substitute anything you can imagine for god, and it would be equally valid.

1) I'm quite saddened by the fact that employers make their own discriminatory ideals get in the way of their choice of good employees. It's quite ironic that you're one of said employers, since you assert that religious ideals would get in the way of science.
2) Yes, your statement was just dripping with sarcasm, can't believe I missed it. In any case, none of what you stated proves your claim that religion can get in the way of one's work as a scientist. Newton was still the founder of many fundamental theories of physics.
3) see above
4) If I were different, I'd make an Ad Hominem attack here; anyway, you have yet to provide to me a reason you think religion disproves itself. Thus, we cannot assume your assertion to be correct. Regardless, you're saying that science contradicts religion, which you haven't warranted either.
5) Oh, so now the burden of proof is on me? I thought you were the one who was making all the assertions. In any case, regardless of on who the burden of proof lies, everyone has to warrant their claims. Your statement indicates to me that you do not know this; that's why 3/4 of your claims are unwarranted and thus should be regarded as complete stupidity and irrational ranting.
6) I really, honestly, truly suggest that you do some research.
7) The whole fact that you're saying Kant's religion got in the way of his moral theories shows your ignorance. In any case, my example of Immanuel Kant was just to indicate that religious people can be great thinkers. It is very ironic that someone like yourself believes otherwise.
Edit: "santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist"
Oh, really? There's no evidence that santa clause doesn't exist? Ha! didn't know that. Oh, the tooth fairy and unicorns and dragons too? Goodness! *gasp* There...is...no...proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist. Neither is there proof of :James Bond <007's>: non-existence. WOW! I'm so uninformed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
geeeeeeeezer,
1) You should look up what a myth is; and see how different it is from religious theory.
2) ...
3) Hopefully by 'the ancients' you don't mean Greeks and Romans.
4) I admire your great skill: you can know what was in the minds of ancient people. Tell me: did Jesus conjour up his idea of God also? What else can you draw from his mind?
5) I don't believe you answered my question; see above ^.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

geeeeeeeezer,
1) You should look up what a myth is; and see how different it is from religious theory.

Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero (jesus) or event, (birth/Crucifixion) with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. (the great flood, the plague of logust, etc..and other biblical BS)
Myth sounds just the same to me, as religious theory.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myth?view=uk
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ionary&va=myth
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...2767&dict=CALD
any number of dictionaries, will give you similar interpretations.
try it http://www.onelook.com/?w=+myth&ls=a

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2)/3) Hopefully by 'the ancients' you don't mean Greeks and Romans.

no all ancients people, the ancient story tellers, the ones that imagined the gods and passed the BS on by word of mouth.
gods like the thunder god Thor, or the sun god Ra, or Gaia the earth mother etc.. there are thousands to choose from here http://www.godchecker.com/

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

4) I admire your great skill: you can know what was in the minds of ancient people. Tell me: did Jesus conjour up his idea of God also? What else can you draw from his mind?

jesus never existed it's all a myth.
heard of mithra, gigamesh, krishna. all have similarities to the jesus myth but thousands of years before which show the the jesus myth is just plagiarised parts of others stories pieced together.

Also there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.
Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm


The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)

Justin does refer to such a report or Acts of Pilate, but no such document existed, until forged in two versions in 3rd and 4th century. The story Tertullian tells is patently absurd.


MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

5) I don't believe you answered my question; see above

I think I did, and I've just done it again, there has, and has never been any evidence, if you give credence to your god, you must give the same, to everything ever thought of, everything imagined must be validated in the same way.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

1) I'm quite saddened by the fact that employers make their own discriminatory ideals get in the way of their choice of good employees.

when we interview a prospective employee, he/she goes through a process, whereas myself and my colleagues discuss the would be candidate, we weight the pros and cons, and yes unfortunately, for the likes of you, religion is taken in to consideration, and it is an out and out no no here.
and believe me when I say their are literally thousands of good choice employees, who dont have that religious irrationality.
your never going to be able to show your worth with religion hanging over your head.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

4) If I were different, I'd make an Ad Hominem attack here;

and if you did what would that prove, only that your weak, and your arguements are weak, not a good basis for science.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

anyway, you have yet to provide to me a reason you think religion disproves itself.

and I possibly never will, to you as your to blinkered with religion, however to me and many others, religion is mearly a myth. thus science need not bother with it. it will die eventually anyway.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

7) The whole fact that you're saying Kant's religion got in the way of his moral theories shows your ignorance.

never said that as you know.
I said you and Kant stated similar reasons but both are in error. if you give validity to one single unproveable point you must give the same to all the millions of other unprovable points

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

In any case, my example of Immanuel Kant was just to indicate that religious people can be great thinkers. It is very ironic that someone like yourself believes otherwise.

yes if kant applied for a job I would'nt employ him either, for the exact same reasons I would'nt employ you. ( so at least you can say your in good company.)

And with your ability to spell and compose a sentence, you might find yourself excluded from many jobs... Whereas the target of your venom is far superior in his presentation. 8)

I'm not sure if this was the intention earlier on in this debate but......

what people took as "evidence" that the Earth was flat was the mere fact that when one looks at the horizon, it appears as if there is nothing else out there; furthermore, when you're on land the earth seems flat. So from this evidence of flatness one could only conclude that the Earth was, indeed, flat, and if you went too far you'd fall off.

If it is logical that looking out over some land towards the horizon gives the impression that the earth is flat, is it not also logical that humans looking out across the universe may come to the simple conclusion that 'goddidit'.

---------

Apparently there was an Indian person called Yajnavalkya who also suggested the the earth was round between the 9th and 8th century BC. Not important, just thought it was interesting.

Everlasting wrote:

The laws of nature cannot explain modern inventions. If a man
is increased with wealth; people might refer to him as a deity.
A modern technology or invention was not made by chance.
What caused the individual to create the idea; was necessity
and inspiration.

Yes, the laws of nature can explain modern inventions.
natural selection ->adaptive to change->innovations->inventions.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

And with your ability to spell and compose a sentence, you might find yourself excluded from many jobs... Whereas the target of your venom is far superior in his presentation. 8)

Megabrain sorry to be so ignorant, but who are you replying too.

Susan's post of course.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Susan's post of course.

understood, so you were being sarcastic.
I thought her post was quite well written, apart from the spelling of merely.
I dont see any venom in her posts either, I think she was just letting scientist-etc-etc know, that she wouldn't employ a religious scientist, well it is a bit of a contradiction dont'ya think.

Then the spelling of 'your, as opposed to you're', failure to start sentences with a capital letter etc etc. I made the remark as Susan described her part in recruiting, faulting her poor english was akin to her faulting a person for being religious, yes a sort of sarcasm..

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Then the spelling of 'your, as opposed to you're', failure to start sentences with a capital letter etc etc. I made the remark as Susan described her part in recruiting, faulting her poor english was akin to her faulting a person for being religious, yes a sort of sarcasm..

well ok, but she probably has a PR for that.
I'm a terrible at grammar, I have one if I could.

Originally Posted by prasit

Everlasting wrote:

The laws of nature cannot explain modern inventions. If a man
is increased with wealth; people might refer to him as a deity.
A modern technology or invention was not made by chance.
What caused the individual to create the idea; was necessity
and inspiration.

Yes, the laws of nature can explain modern inventions.
natural selection ->adaptive to change->innovations->inventions.

If man lives by the will of nature and his environment, and the foundation of the environment has laws;

Who created the laws? And how are anomolies explained?

If you respect the concept of laws, and adhere to them as rule; then that is religion.

Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com

:-D

geezer,
ok, so you gave me the technical definition of a myth. But you must consider that a myth is often looked upon as something inherently false. Whether you believe in it or not, you cannot say (with proof) that religion is inherently false. What you can say is inherently false is the idea of Santa Clause. And
1. When did we switch from talking about God in general to the Christian God (Jesus)?
2. Jesus did exist; it's a historical fact that even atheists admit...it's whether he was the son of God, or performed miracles that's the true question; furthermore, saying Jesus didn't exist isn't a very strong argumentation against the existence of God: it's just an unverifiable claim.

Susan,
I'm very tempted to make an ad hominem attack right now, but, like you said, it's poor argumentation, sooooooooo...
you didn't respond to the following points:
2, 3, 5, 6, and
'Edit: "santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist"
Oh, really? There's no evidence that santa clause doesn't exist? Ha! didn't know that. Oh, the tooth fairy and unicorns and dragons too? Goodness! *gasp* There...is...no...proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist. Neither is there proof of :James Bond <007's>: non-existence. WOW! I'm so uninformed. '
Your claim is bolded, and my response is italicized.

If God does exist, the guy (or gal) has been awfully quiet since speaking to a bunch a dehydrated delerious middle-eastern peasants.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

If God does exist, the guy (or gal) has been awfully quiet since speaking to a bunch a dehydrated delerious middle-eastern peasants.

I nearly died laughing!
He has been quiet lately! Perhaps Nietzsche is right?

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

geezer,
ok, so you gave me the technical definition of a myth. But you must consider that a myth is often looked upon as something inherently false. Whether you believe in it or not, you cannot say (with proof) that religion is inherently false.

niether cannot you say that (with proof) that lenny the leprechaun, or winnie the pooh, are inherently false, whats your point.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What you can say is inherently false is the idea of Santa Clause.

how so, please explain.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

1. When did we switch from talking about God in general to the Christian God (Jesus)?

when you said this "4) I admire your great skill: you can know what was in the minds of ancient people. Tell me: did Jesus conjour up his idea of God also? What else can you draw from his mind?" you would first have to establish a jesus person was real, before you could ask that sort of question unless you wanted me to imagine, what an imaginary figure was thinking.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2. Jesus did exist; it's a historical fact that even atheists admit...

yes many jesus'es existed and exist even today.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

it's whether he was the son of God, or performed miracles that's the true question;

that the one, there no evidence for, and that's the one, that christian follow.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

furthermore, saying Jesus didn't exist isn't a very strong argumentation against the existence of God: it's just an unverifiable claim.

as is the evidence for a god existing, after all the existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing. To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist, it is unreasonable to have belief in supernatural beings without any evidence.
so it is nonsensical for anybody to demand proof of non-existence.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

geezer,
ok, so you gave me the technical definition of a myth. But you must consider that a myth is often looked upon as something inherently false. Whether you believe in it or not, you cannot say (with proof) that religion is inherently false.

1niether cannot you say that (with proof) that lenny the leprechaun, or winnie the pooh, are inherently false, whats your point.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What you can say is inherently false is the idea of Santa Clause.

2how so, please explain.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

1. When did we switch from talking about God in general to the Christian God (Jesus)?

3when you said this "4) I admire your great skill: you can know what was in the minds of ancient people. Tell me: did Jesus conjour up his idea of God also? What else can you draw from his mind?" you would first have to establish a jesus person was real, before you could ask that sort of question unless you wanted me to imagine, what an imaginary figure was thinking.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2. Jesus did exist; it's a historical fact that even atheists admit...

4yes many jesus'es existed and exist even today.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

it's whether he was the son of God, or performed miracles that's the true question;

5 that the one, there no evidence for, and that's the one, that christian follow.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

furthermore, saying Jesus didn't exist isn't a very strong argumentation against the existence of God: it's just an unverifiable claim.

6as is the evidence for a god existing, after all the existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing. To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist, it is unreasonable to have belief in supernatural beings without any evidence.
so it is nonsensical for anybody to demand proof of non-existence.

1) c'mon now, the proof that those don't exist is on google. Just type in "creator of winnie the pooh", or something like that. Obviously some guy just created winnie the pooh for the entertainment of children...don't become susan, now.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus Santa Claus originated to put a spin on Christmas.
3) My statement wasn't intended to start a debate on whether Jesus existed.
4) stop being facetious.
5) ...so you agree that that's the true question...
6) You should study Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (I believe that's the one) for this. Just like we cannot say for certain God exists, we cannot say for certain that God does not exist, because God is a metaphysical being. We perceive/describe the world through established categories (quantity, quality, etc.). God cannot be described by any of these categories (since we have never seen him, and since he's a metaphysical being), so we cannot make solid conclusions about him; we can only speculate about his existence. You could almost say God is a noumenon.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

1) c'mon now, the proof that those don't exist is on google. Just type in "creator of winnie the pooh", or something like that. Obviously some guy just created winnie the pooh for the entertainment of children...don't become susan, now.

no chance of that, but what prove do you have to show the bible was'nt written to entertain, or to control. what evidence is there the bible is anymore feasible than winnie the pooh, or any other fictional book.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus Santa Claus originated to put a spin on Christmas.

bad answer, why is father christmas/santa/st nicholas, anyless feasible than god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Christmas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nicolas

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

3) My statement wasn't intended to start a debate on whether Jesus existed.

and I was'nt intending on debating a jesus, I was just pointing out theres no evidence for one, so it was a bit of a moot statement on your part.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

4) stop being facetious.

who's being facetious, it's the one true fact about jesus/jesus'es.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

5) ...so you agree that that's the true question...

no disagreement there, and there is no evidence for that type of person/thing/creature ever existing.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

6) You should study Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (I believe that's the one) for this. Just like we cannot say for certain God exists, we cannot say for certain that God does not exist, because God is a metaphysical being.

yes a god concept is certainly abstract, imaginary or fanciful, but no one is saying that a god does not exist because the non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

We perceive/describe the world through established categories (quantity, quality, etc.). God cannot be described by any of these categories (since we have never seen him, and since he's a metaphysical being), so we cannot make solid conclusions about him; we can only speculate about his existence. You could almost say God is a noumenon.

exactly totally subjective, so as i said earlier it is unreasonable and irrational to have a belief in such a thing.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

1) c'mon now, the proof that those don't exist is on google. Just type in "creator of winnie the pooh", or something like that. Obviously some guy just created winnie the pooh for the entertainment of children...don't become susan, now.

no chance of that, but what prove do you have to show the bible was'nt written to entertain, or to control. what evidence is there the bible is anymore feasible than winnie the pooh, or any other fictional book.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus Santa Claus originated to put a spin on Christmas.

bad answer, why is father christmas/santa/st nicholas, anyless feasible than god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Christmas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nicolas

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

3) My statement wasn't intended to start a debate on whether Jesus existed.

and I was'nt intending on debating a jesus, I was just pointing out theres no evidence for one, so it was a bit of a moot statement on your part.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

4) stop being facetious.

who's being facetious, it's the one true fact about jesus/jesus'es.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

5) ...so you agree that that's the true question...

no disagreement there, and there is no evidence for that type of person/thing/creature ever existing.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

6) You should study Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (I believe that's the one) for this. Just like we cannot say for certain God exists, we cannot say for certain that God does not exist, because God is a metaphysical being.

yes a god concept is certainly abstract, imaginary or fanciful, but no one is saying that a god does not exist because the non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

We perceive/describe the world through established categories (quantity, quality, etc.). God cannot be described by any of these categories (since we have never seen him, and since he's a metaphysical being), so we cannot make solid conclusions about him; we can only speculate about his existence. You could almost say God is a noumenon.

exactly totally subjective, so as i said earlier it is unreasonable and irrational to have a belief in such a thing.

1) The bible has some possibility of being true. Winnie the Pooh is not real. Full stop. End of debate.

2) Same as above. Apparently you don't understand that people are fully aware of the fact that Santa Clause and Winnie the Pooh were created by men; and know their origin and/or creator, which is not the case for the Bible.

3) Your saying Jesus didn't exist is fuel for a debate on whether Jesus existed.

4) ...

5) ...

6)
a. You constantly try to use your diction to make the concept of God seem silly, imaginary, and, in some respects, childish. It's really annoying. That being said,
geezer wrote:
"no one is saying that a god does not exist"

Actually, you're saying that; you've been saying it in all your posts.

b. The fact that a topic is subjective does not suggest that the affirmative side (Theism) is less rational than the negative side (Atheism). Your claim is a clear logical fallacy.

Everlasting wrote:

Who created the laws? And how are anomolies explained?

Why do the laws have to be created? What anomalies?

If you respect the concept of laws, and adhere to them as rule; then that is religion.

Is not. Natural laws are discovered, studied, applied. 'Respect' is too ambiguous in this context.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

1) The bible has some possibility of being true. Winnie the Pooh is not real. Full stop. End of debate.

ok! so lets step back a bit, lets use some other aledgedly fictional, people like sinbad, or jason, or beowulf, gilgamesh, apollo, etc... there are numerous fictional/mythical stories, all have a possiblity of being true, end of debate.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

2) Same as above. Apparently you don't understand that people are fully aware of the fact that Santa Clause and Winnie the Pooh were created by men; and know their origin and/or creator, which is not the case for the Bible.

an appeal to popularity is irrelevant.
people are aware of gilgamesh and sinbad, but they can still be true.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

3) Your saying Jesus didn't exist is fuel for a debate on whether Jesus existed.

already shown the nonexistence, no need for further debate, it been done here before.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

4) ...

....?

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

5) ...

....?

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

6)a. You constantly try to use your diction to make the concept of God seem silly, imaginary, and, in some respects, childish. It's really annoying.

well I'm sorry but if the cap fits.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

That being said,
geezer wrote:
"no one is saying that a god does not exist"

Actually, you're saying that; you've been saying it in all your posts.

yes I'm 99.9% sure there is no god, but saying that a god doesn't exist is infantile for the very same reasons I gave in my last post.
it is unreasonable, and wholly irrational to have a believe in something subjective, hence why I'l use winnie the pooh, because he is just a worthy of praise as any other imaginary, fictional, subjective thing.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

b. The fact that a topic is subjective does not suggest that the affirmative side (Theism) is less rational than the negative side (Atheism).

ah but it does, if I when round positing that a three legged giant fly with the head of a bear and coloured purple lived in my shed, is that rational, no matter how afirmative I was.
quite clearly anything imagined and posited as truth is irrational.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Your claim is a clear logical fallacy.

I think you may have that back to front.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

3) Your saying Jesus didn't exist is fuel for a debate on whether Jesus existed.

already shown the nonexistence, no need for further debate, it been done here before.

Ah, but you fail to see...insofar as you declare that you've "already shown the nonexistence", I must disagree with you and assert his existence.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

6)a. You constantly try to use your diction to make the concept of God seem silly, imaginary, and, in some respects, childish. It's really annoying.

well I'm sorry but if the cap fits.

but the cap doesn't fit. That cap is too small for the clearly larger head of religious theory.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

That being said,
geezer wrote:
"no one is saying that a god does not exist"

Actually, you're saying that; you've been saying it in all your posts.

yes I'm 99.9% sure there is no god, but saying that a god doesn't exist is infantile for the very same reasons I gave in my last post.
it is unreasonable, and wholly irrational to have a believe in something subjective, hence why I used winnie the pooh, because he is just a worthy of praise as any other imaginary, fictional, subjective thing.

I'm trying to avoid this silly debate about whether winnie the pooh exists...here, proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist: http://www.answers.com/topic/a-a-milne ; I'd advise you to not go around declaring that winnie the pooh is just as believable as God: you'd look like an idiot.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

b. The fact that a topic is subjective does not suggest that the affirmative side (Theism) is less rational than the negative side (Atheism).

ah but it does, if I when round positing that a three legged giant fly with the head of a bear and coloured purple lived in my shed, is that rational, no matter how afirmative I was.
quite clearly anything imagined and posited as truth is irrational.

January/February 2007 Lincoln-Douglas topic: "Resolved: the actions of corporations ought to be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals." Let's say I'm on aff. does that mean that I'm less rational than the person on neg?

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Your claim is a clear logical fallacy.

I think you may have that back to front.

On the contrary my friend, you've got it backwards.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I must disagree with you and assert his existence.

well then feel free to posit your testable and verifiable evidence, for said assertion thank you.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

but the cap doesn't fit. That cap is too small for the clearly larger head of religious theory.

again with the appeal to popularity, lol.
feel free to posit some testable and verifiable evidence, thank you.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I'm trying to avoid this silly debate about whether winnie the pooh exists...here, proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist: http://www.answers.com/topic/a-a-milne ;

irrelevant, feel free to posit some testable and verifiable evidence that your god is anymore real then winnie the pooh.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I'd advise you to not go around declaring that winnie the pooh is just as believable as God: you'd look like an idiot.

I will continue to do until you can show me in err, all you need to do is produce one single instance of your god. To put that another way: -
When the existence of your god is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the god said not to exist. so feel free to posit some testable and verifiable evidence, thank you.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Let's say I'm on aff. does that mean that I'm less rational than the person on neg?

if the person, as you put it, on the neg is coming from a rational objective basis, and you being the complete opposite, on the aff, then yes, you are correct, you are irrational.

Ok, now this is getting silly...

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I must disagree with you and assert his existence.

well then feel free to posit your testable and verifiable evidence, for said assertion thank you.

Go to google.com, type in "proof of Jesus existence" and there you have it: tons of proof, though you might find some so-called disproof; however, the amount of evidence outweighs the lack thereof. Further, you have yet to 'disprove' his existence. Your evidence provided on the previous page is not counter-evidence, but rather statements appealing to lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

but the cap doesn't fit. That cap is too small for the clearly larger head of religious theory.

again with the appeal to popularity, lol.
feel free to posit some testable and verifiable evidence, thank you.

I'm not appealing to popularity (though I understand your logic). By "larger head" I don't mean larger number of believers; rather, I mean higher complexity.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I'm trying to avoid this silly debate about whether winnie the pooh exists...here, proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist: http://www.answers.com/topic/a-a-milne ;

irrelevant, feel free to posit some testable and verifiable evidence that your god is anymore real then winnie the pooh.

*sigh* what is the world coming to...people can't reason anymore; you have to point everything out to them. Winnie the Pooh was created by A. A. Milne (see above link). An ordinary man. There's no evidence as to anyone "creating" God. See the difference? Winnie the Pooh=imagination of AA Milne; God=?

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I'd advise you to not go around declaring that winnie the pooh is just as believable as God: you'd look like an idiot.

I will continue to do until you can show me in err, all you need to do is produce one single instance of your god. To put that another way: -
When the existence of your god is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the god said not to exist. so feel free to posit some testable and verifiable evidence, thank you.

Well you will continue to look like a complete idiot.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Let's say I'm on aff. does that mean that I'm less rational than the person on neg?

if the person, as you put it, on the neg is coming from a rational objective basis, and you being the complete opposite, on the aff, then yes, you are correct, you are irrational.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The person opposing you has a reasonable cause; thus your cause is unreasonable. It's amazing how people come up with the most non-sequitur ideas.
--------------------------------
Not to sound condescending or anything, but so far your arguments are very weak. I expected better from an ardent atheist. I mean, seriously, atheists always come up with some very convincing arguments. Your arguments couldn't convince an agnostic who's leaning more towards atheism. The person would prolly convert to Christianity instantly. Arguing that if God exists, then Winnie the Pooh probably exist is very silly, and I'm sure even an atheist would agree with me.

Well, SPT, one of the problems you have with people like geezer is that they reject any and all evidence as irrelevant or non existent.

The Bible is rejected as a fictional account; Jesus is rejected as having never existed by some and as Savior by others; the universe; nature and life are accidents rather than the handiwork of God; personal experience is considered false or imagined.

The evidence geezer seeks is there. It is not a matter of no evidence, it is a matter of rejecting that which there is. In such a case, there is no quantum or speck of evidence which would suffice.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Go to google.com, type in "proof of Jesus existence" and there you have it: tons of proof,

sorry it dont work like that, proof has to be testable and verifiable, you just cant google it.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

though you might find some so-called disproof; however, the amount of evidence outweighs the lack thereof. Further, you have yet to 'disprove' his existence. Your evidence provided on the previous page is not counter-evidence, but rather statements appealing to lack of evidence.

so in your opinion every bit of extra biblical evidence, for a jesus person. has not been refuted, it all just appealing to lack of evidence, oh I see.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I'm not appealing to popularity (though I understand your logic). By "larger head" I don't mean larger number of believers; rather, I mean higher complexity.

are you sure you dont mean contradictory.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

*sigh* what is the world coming to...people can't reason anymore; you have to point everything out to them. Winnie the Pooh was created by A. A. Milne (see above link). An ordinary man. There's no evidence as to anyone "creating" God. See the difference? Winnie the Pooh=imagination of AA Milne; God=?

jeez some people never learn! Winnie the Pooh=imagination of AA Milne; God=imagination of ancient story teller ( sorry he will have to remain anonimous, because I dont know his name)

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Well you will continue to look like a complete idiot.

only to a blinkered sheeple.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

That makes no sense whatsoever. The person opposing you has a reasonable cause;

how so, when what they are positing is purely subjective.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

thus your cause is unreasonable.

how so, if mine is objective. try to make sense please.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Not to sound condescending or anything, but so far your arguments are very weak. I expected better from an ardent atheist. I mean, seriously, atheists always come up with some very convincing arguments. Your arguments couldn't convince an agnostic who's leaning more towards atheism. [ The person would prolly convert to Christianity instantly.

well it was only a matter of time, the theist shows his true colours and reverts to personal attacks. are you so weak?

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Arguing that if God exists, then Winnie the Pooh probably exist is very silly, and I'm sure even an atheist would agree with me.

I never once said a god existed, quite the opposite infact.
what I said was, without evidence of it's existence a god is just as valid as winnie the pooh. and I know any atheist would agree with that.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Well, SPT, one of the problems you have with people like geezer is that they reject any and all evidence as irrelevant or non existent.

The Bible is rejected as a fictional account; Jesus is rejected as having never existed by some and as Savior by others; the universe; nature and life are accidents rather than the handiwork of God; personal experience is considered false or imagined.

The evidence geezer seeks is there. It is not a matter of no evidence, it is a matter of rejecting that which there is. In such a case, there is no quantum or speck of evidence which would suffice.

oh there is, all you need to do is produce one single instance of your gods existence.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheis

2) Yes, your statement was just dripping with sarcasm, can't believe I missed it. In any case, none of what you stated proves your claim that religion can get in the way of one's work as a scientist. Newton was still the founder of many fundamental theories of physics.

that was then this is now, newton was a mad genius, who mostly worked alone. if you were to work alone, I'd have no problem with that.
however here, you could not be given the same status, as the other scientist, it would be wholly irrational, to do so.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheis

3) see above

see above.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheis

5) Your statement indicates to me that you do not know this; that's why 3/4 of your claims are unwarranted and thus should be regarded as complete stupidity and irrational ranting.

in your opinion, however I would lose my job if I employed anybody in a scientific field who was religious. this is why I say science and religion do not mix.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheis

6) I really, honestly, truly suggest that you do some research.

what would you like me to research, it would not change the fact that science and religion dont mix.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheis

Oh, really? There's no evidence that santa clause doesn't exist? Ha! didn't know that. Oh, the tooth fairy and unicorns and dragons too? Goodness! *gasp* There...is...no...proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist. Shocked Neither is there proof of :James Bond <007's>: non-existence. WOW! I'm so uninformed.

oh yes theres a lot of evidence for santas existence as there is for the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, gods, demons, ghosts, the FSM, the FT, the IPU, moon giraffes, and jesus, and winnie the pooh.

And it continues...it's becoming rather amusing, actually, as your statements/refutations become more...nonsensical...

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Go to google.com, type in "proof of Jesus existence" and there you have it: tons of proof,

sorry it dont work like that, proof has to be testable and verifiable, you just cant google it.

oh, but you can...google takes you to relevant sites, or are you too lazy to decide which sites are relevant and which aren't?

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

though you might find some so-called disproof; however, the amount of evidence outweighs the lack thereof. Further, you have yet to 'disprove' his existence. Your evidence provided on the previous page is not counter-evidence, but rather statements appealing to lack of evidence.

so in your opinion every bit of extra biblical evidence, for a jesus person. has not been refuted, it all just appealing to lack of evidence, oh I see.

Not biblical...historical.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I'm not appealing to popularity (though I understand your logic). By "larger head" I don't mean larger number of believers; rather, I mean higher complexity.

are you sure you dont mean contradictory.

That wouldn't even make grammatical sense. And you didn't refute my arg.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

*sigh* what is the world coming to...people can't reason anymore; you have to point everything out to them. Winnie the Pooh was created by A. A. Milne (see above link). An ordinary man. There's no evidence as to anyone "creating" God. See the difference? Winnie the Pooh=imagination of AA Milne; God=?

jeez some people never learn! Winnie the Pooh=imagination of AA Milne; God=imagination of ancient story teller ( sorry he will have to remain anonimous, because I dont know his name)

Exactly, you don't know his name, which makes your argument baseless. You're really giving atheists a bad rep. And they said theists can't be rational.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Well you will continue to look like a complete idiot.

only to a blinkered sheeple.

...

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

That makes no sense whatsoever. The person opposing you has a reasonable cause;

how so, when what they are positing is purely subjective.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

thus your cause is unreasonable.

how so, if mine is objective. try to make sense please.

A clear misunderstanding. I'm saying that you're saying that "the person opposing you has a reasonable cause, thus your cause is unreasonable." Read that post again.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Not to sound condescending or anything, but so far your arguments are very weak. I expected better from an ardent atheist. I mean, seriously, atheists always come up with some very convincing arguments. Your arguments couldn't convince an agnostic who's leaning more towards atheism. [ The person would prolly convert to Christianity instantly.

well it was only a matter of time, the theist shows his true colours and reverts to personal attacks. are you so weak?

Well you were askin' for it, with your non-sequitur, illogical arguments. And I must say my attacks weren't Ad Hominem. I attacked your logic, not your person.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Arguing that if God exists, then Winnie the Pooh probably exist is very silly, and I'm sure even an atheist would agree with me.

I never once said a god existed, quite the opposite infact.
what I said was, without evidence of it's existence a god is just as valid as winnie the pooh. and I know any atheist would agree with that.

Never said you said God existed. Read my post again, and pay close attention to the word "if".

EDIT: Susan,

Originally Posted by susan

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheis

Oh, really? There's no evidence that santa clause doesn't exist? Ha! didn't know that. Oh, the tooth fairy and unicorns and dragons too? Goodness! *gasp* There...is...no...proof that winnie the pooh doesn't exist. Shocked Neither is there proof of :James Bond <007's>: non-existence. WOW! I'm so uninformed.

oh yes theres a lot of evidence for santas existence as there is for the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, gods, demons, ghosts, the FSM, the FT, the IPU, moon giraffes, and jesus, and winnie the pooh.

See my point against geezer's claim that winnie the pooh possibly exists.
Overall, I'd say that if you want to exclude religious scientists from the employment process, you go ahead. I'd advise you, though, that it's to the detriment of your own company, as is exemplified by the fact that you would not have employed the great Newton, or any of THESE guys, for that matter.

P.S. do you live in the US? Because if so, you're violating some major laws there, missy (no discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc.). If not, then you'd better not move there (unless you're prepared to hire religious scientists).