Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 436 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 10 of 35 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 34 35 >
Topic Options
#17954 - 02/02/07 06:28 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
IS THIS TOPIC ABOUT HARD SCIENCE?
If I understand things correctly, it is more about philosophy--and perhaps the art of communicating--than about science.

BTW, if it is about science, I would like to see the concrete evidence that I have, "disdain and contempt for science."

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND ART
I think it was Will R. Durant--of French-Canadian ancestry, by the way--who said.
Quote:
All science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art.
Ever since I read his Story of Philosophy, he has been one of my favourite philosophers and historians. Also, I frequently dip into his vast STORY OF CIVILIZATION, which, with the help of his beloved wife, Ariel, it took him fifty years to write.

For a wonderful outline of the story of his life check out the following essay by the editors of Wisdom Magazine:

http://www.willdurant.com/bio.htm

I especially like the way the essay ends:
Quote:
...He never once attempted to build his reputation at the expense of others; instead he sought to better understand the viewpoints of human beings, and to forgive them their foibles and human waywardness. When two burglars were apprehended by police after having broke into his Los Angeles home and stealing valuable jewelry and savings bonds ? Durant refused to press charges and insisted that they be set free. "Forgiveness," again, is the other half of philosophy.

Durant?s love for his wife Ariel only deepened with the passing of time. When he was admitted to hospital with heart problems in 1981 at the age of 96, his wife stopped eating; perhaps fearing that he would not be returning. When Durant learned of the death of his beloved wife, his own heart stopped beating. They are buried beside each other in a small Los Angeles cemetery, together for all eternity.

Unlike the cloistered academics who turned up their noses at Durant?s attempt to bring philosophy back to the common man, Durant was not content merely to write about such subjects, he actually did his best to put his ideas into effect. He had fought for equal wages, women?s suffrage and fairer working conditions for the American labor force. Durant had even drafted a "Declaration of Interdependence" in the early 1940s ? preceding the "Civil Rights Movement" by some two decades ? calling for, among many things:

Human dignity and decency, and to safeguard these without distinction of race or color or creed; to strive in concert with others to discourage animosities arising from these differences, and to unite all groups in the fair play of civilized life?Rooted in freedom, children of the same Divine Father, sharing everywhere a common human blood, we declare again that all men are brothers, and that mutual tolerance is the price of liberty.

He pursued this issue of racial equality so vigorously that this Declaration was introduced into the Congressional Record on October 1, 1945.

Over the years, Durant?s reputation as a philosopher and historian has grown; his writings, which have sold over 17 million copies, have been enjoyed by individuals from all walks of life. Among his most impassioned readers (and friends) were Mahatma Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Clarence Darrow and Bertrand Russell ? although it was always for the common man, rather than the scholastic or academic audience, that Durant wrote.

"We could do almost anything if time would slow up," he once said, adding "but it runs on, and we melt away trying to keep up with it." And yet even time never covered 110 centuries in fifty years.

By the editors of Wisdom magazine and John Little

_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
.
#17955 - 02/02/07 06:46 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
I would also love to know more about the, "...invisible purple rhinoceros" Of which DAM writes, "I know there is." Facinating!

BTW, DAM, I hope you do keep your promise that you will...How did you put it? "keep on my heels". I find you are a worthy protagonist, so far, and, when you are on, your critique does help to stimulate thinking. I hope that we can encourage other posters, pro and con to get involved.

Lurkers, we encourge you to make comments and/or just ask questions.

BTW, pneumatology, epistimology, theology and the like, IMHO, are still pretty much at the philosophy stage.

_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#17956 - 02/02/07 10:36 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Revlgking,

This topic is about Evidence for God. It has swayed well off the beaten track, but your posts seem to me to be about proselytising and little else. They also seem to be rather vague and fuzzy.

I have spent quite a bit of time on your web site and it seems that you have simply invented another cult without any real evidence to back it up.

At least Christianity has historical and textual evidence at its centre (of course their reliability and authenticity is entirely debatable, but at least there is something to debate and subject to a reasoned scrutiny). Your worldview seems to be something you have plucked from the ether that feels nice and warm for you ? something that Christianity certainly is not for me.

Your long posts are currently dominating this thread.

I would be interested to see this debate ask real questions about the ability to make falsifiable predictions about a universe that was created by a god.

I think it would be better to examine evidence for naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

Blacknad.

Top
#17957 - 02/03/07 12:37 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Blacknad]
Turner Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 16
Evidence for God?

Then, let those who believe in the god of theism, present their evidence.

On the other hand, let the atheists present their evidence, that there is no God.

Otherwise, as a new poster, what can I say?


In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept.

With this in mind, is it okay for me to set up a new thread to clarify what I feel this forum is all about? The communication of new ideas.

I you have no interest in this, I will go elsewhere.

Top
#17960 - 02/03/07 02:11 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Turner]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Yes Revlgking ... to quote Blacknad about your posts ... "They also seem to be rather vague and fuzzy."

In fact I think it would take a drug induced stupor to be more vague, more fuzzy headed, and less capable of sentient thought.

Not once have I seen you evidence any critical thinking skills: Just contempt for science and the scientific method while rolling in the fruits of other's labors.

You are just the leader of another cult using new-age imbecilities to extract money from the gullible because you are, it would seem, too lazy to get a real job, do real work, and contribute anything of substance.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17961 - 02/03/07 02:20 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Turner wrote:
"On the other hand, let the atheists present their evidence, that there is no God."

That is not the way science works and you seem both old enough and intelligent enough to know that. Let me paraphrase what you wrote in a manner that may clarify it for you.

Statement 1:
"let those who believe in the invisible purple rhinoceros, present their evidence."

Statement 2:
"let those who don't believe present their evidence, that there is no in the invisible purple rhinoceros."

You can not prove the non-existence of something that does not exist. You can only state that there is no evidence for its existence which is the case with god. Let me show you why that is demonstratably true.

How would the universe in which we live be different if created by purely natural processes rather than by a sentient entity?

And since you can't answer that ... and neither can anyone else ... you have an absence of evidence for that deity's existence.

Turner writes:
"In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept."

He may well have a point about that. But this is a science forum and he should stop being a rude troll and go to theologyagogo.com and ask the question. Or he could actually go to a seminary and ask the question. Or he could stop prosletyzing and being a parasite on the gullible and ask that question.

Humans have had a concept of what god or gods is/are for more than 10,000 years. The phony reverend doesn't know a single thing that my cat doesn't know. The difference is that my cat has the good manners to not pretend otherwise.

I, personally, have a lot of interest in the topic or I wouldn't be here. I have no interest in parasite. I have no interest in people pushing out fuzzy concepts and pretending they have substance, and I have no tolerance for trolls.

Discuss the topic using your own thoughts, your own words, and the gray matter between your ears and your contributions will be appreciated. Which doesn't mean we will agree with you but we will respect you for being sentient.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17962 - 02/03/07 03:16 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Turner Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 16
Turner writes: "In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept."

Morgan, you respond, "He may well have a point about that."

Morgan, thank you for conceding this point.

By the way, I am in my forties. And I am one of those many post-readers--how do you describe them, lurkers?--who has held back because I don't like being jumped on by, what I have heard referred to as "verbal bullies".

Mr. Morgan, keep; this in mind, will you, please?

You write: "But this is a science forum and he (the Rev) should stop being a rude troll and go to theologyagogo.com and ask the question."

May I be so bold as to suggest: You are wrong! This thread is not about hard science; it is about...well,ask Kate what she has already said it is.

Further, The Rev is not...how do you say it...prosletyzing and being a parasite on the gullible...

Give us ONE example where The Rev says: You must believe ME and follow what I tell you to follow.

Careful when you write:

"The phony reverend doesn't know a single thing that my cat doesn't know. The difference is that my cat has the good manners to not pretend otherwise."

Would you be prepared, in a court of law, to defend such libelous slander?

I await your answer, please.



Top
#17964 - 02/03/07 04:14 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Turner]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
The Reverend as he calls himself is not. He is a hypnotherapist who has self-annointed himself an expert on things no one alive understands.

Should I respect that? Should you? Should anyone older than 12? Are you a member of his cult? He is as likely to sue anyone as he is to have read the original text of Genesis.

And please don't make me laugh so hard by throwing out phrases such as "libelous slander." I have a few years of law school under my belt and know the law well enough to know where I stand when posting in an open public internet forum operated in Australia and responding to someone in Canada from the United States. No doubt he'll have no problem finding a court of original jurisdiction in Namibia. But before he does he might wish to read:

United States Supreme Court
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
403 U.S. 29
Argued December 7-8, 1970
Decided June 7, 1971

It is the law of the land.
At least the one in which I live.
And that is the only one that matters.

ROFLOL!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17966 - 02/03/07 05:20 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
WHAT A FLURRY OF INTEREST
I have been away from my 'puter for awhile. Well, well!! What an interesting flury of activity there has been. Over 1,700 clicks! WOW!!! This topic has sure stirred up a lot of interest. I wonder why!

Turner, thanks for your input.

In addition, thanks for introducing a new thread title. IMHO, it solves one problem, at least: I will feel free to talk about the philosophy and art of religion without being overly concerned about the science factor. I repeat, thanks!

The new thread may slow things down somewhat, but that's okay with me. I am busy enough as it is with things going on in http://pathwayschurch.ca --a regularly constituted congregation of the national church--the United Church of Canada--to be very concerned about too many other things.

BTW, if at all possible, I like to deal with personhal conflicts on a moral and ethical level, not on a legal one. But thanks for your concern, anyway. I will leave the demeaning comments to those who are good at it.

BTW 2, I find it very difficult to speak badly about people, especially when I don't know what it is that make them feel so miserable that they feel that they have to lash out at others. Sad, isn't it?

_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#17968 - 02/03/07 03:16 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Miserable? Hardly!. And I do so love condescension from someone seemingly incapable of engaging in critical thinking on any subject other than how to find a larger flock to fleece while enjoying a tax-free lifestyle subsidized by one's hardworking fellow countrymen.

Still incapable of discussing science in a science forum eh?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17977 - 02/03/07 10:57 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
...other than how to find a larger flock to fleece while enjoying a tax-free lifestyle subsidized by one's hardworking fellow countrymen.
"Larger flock"? What are you talking about? I use my mouth to--among other things--ask questions, not as a place to keep my feet.

For the record:

Both my wife and I--we are of the same age--have been retired from active duty since 1994. Thank G?D I had the good fortune to marry a successful teacher. It is her pension, not mine, which enables us to live in relative security. Our good health keeps us active helping others. And we are willing to share info on how this is done, too.

BTW, is it a crime to have a successful retirement? Or, because of our good fortune, should we turn ourselves in?

Meanwhile, because of our FAT pension we take the opportunity to do tons of volunteer work. If you would care to join us, we will be happy to tell you how you can do the same--in your area--okay?

Keep in mind: ON OUR INCOME, AND ON THE PROPERTY WHERE WE NOW LIVE, WE PAY ALL PROPER TAXES.

IS THIS CLEAR? IF NOT, LET ME KNOW!!!!!!!

_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#17978 - 02/04/07 01:38 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Last time I checked you were claiming to be a man of the cloth. A little research of course showed something different ... a self-anointed hypnotist. The religion I imagine being used to fleece that taxpayers by claiming tax exempt status and to fleece the gullible by leading them to believe you have a DD degree.

For years here at SAGG I have railed against the clergy for their hypocrisy. How I have been blessed to have an example to discuss for years to come.

And still no ability to discuss science, eh?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17988 - 02/04/07 08:31 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Blacknad wrote:

"I think it would be better to examine evidence for naturalism vs. supernaturalism."

Not a bad idea, Blacknad. At least we might then know what we are supposed to be looking for. I would be the first to admit that certain things have happened to me that are hard to explain as just coincidence. But is this evidence of the supernatural, or perhaps the power of the human mind? (Sounds new age doesn't it, sorry DA).

By the way I don't actually think religion is necessarily all bad. It has served us well, probably for far longer than the 10,000 years DA Morgan suggests. I've also seen many people change their lives for the better through it. It's just that it occasionally leads to decisions that may not be in humanity's best interest, however we might define that. And of course it is usually used simply to justify politically expedient actions.

But any religion has to accomodate the facts as they are understood at the time. I've yet to hear of any religion that takes it as a given we have evolved over the last few million years from apes, and will continue evolving.

Top
#17995 - 02/04/07 05:30 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
TNZ wrote:
"Sounds new age doesn't it, sorry DA)"

Yes but I actually agree with you. I think it is, in fact, the power of the human mind but not the power you may be thinking.

It has been proven, repeatedly, that human memories are not a tape recording of events that can be played back at will. They are easily constructed to match events as one wishes to believe them. Take, for example, the research done with a clown, or whatever, walking across the court during the middle of a basketball game or the law school exercise in which an event is staged in the class and students are asked to testify as to what happened. Those who wish to believe woo-woo feel-good fuzzy nonsense have no problem doing so. That is the way the mind is wired. And memories are constructed to match the predisposition.

I don't think belief systems are all bad but I do think that contemporary religion has far more to apologize for than to smile about. No matter what value it may have had in the past it now serves the purpose of picking pockets and to my feeling is best summed up by a oft repeated quote attributed to H.L. Mencken:

"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to
mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking."

Not to mention genocide, war, and a bomb that murdered more than 120 people in Baghdad within the last 24 hours.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#18007 - 02/05/07 04:07 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
DA wrote:

"It has been proven, repeatedly, that human memories are not a tape recording of events that can be played back at will. They are easily constructed to match events as one wishes to believe them."

Yes. I was talking about fate with a friend some years ago. Of course it's only fate after the event. If some other option had materialised this option would now be regarded as fate. But where does that leave us in our search for evidence for God?

Top
#18147 - 02/14/07 11:19 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
I would say that the fact that our universe exists, or came into existence, is not necessarily evidence of a creator, or God. Science is science and spirit is spirit and, for me, never the twain shall meet; the spiritual is no way dependent upon scientific knowledge or historical data. I'm a theist, by the way.

Top
#18150 - 02/14/07 04:54 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: redewenur]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Redewenur: You say your are a theist. As there are several kinds of theism, please be more specific. I hope we can have an interesting dialogue, have different opinions and still keep the basic Golden Rule, eh?

I state the GR this way: Because GOD is Spirit and Love; let us love and respect one another as we need to be loved.

Love is not just sentimentality or even friendship. It is the offerring of good will, to self and others, regardless of how we feel.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#18152 - 02/14/07 10:36 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Redewenur: You say your are a theist. As there are several kinds of theism, please be more specific.

Please excuse me, Revlgking, for not expanding on my use of the word theist. I stated it simply in order to indicate that, for me, there's more to existence than physics can get a handle on. My theism may be called 'non-specific'. I don't 'belong' to any theistic group.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#18155 - 02/15/07 12:22 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: redewenur]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: redewenur
[quote=Revlgking]Redewenur: You say your are a theist. As there are several kinds of theism, please be more specific.
Your response: "I don't 'belong' to any theistic group." indicates to me that you are very open to new ideas. So am I. It is always refreshing to meet people with open minds.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#18156 - 02/15/07 01:13 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Well, Revlgking, I'm probably not as open minded as you might think. I don't fall into line with the billions who 'belong' to the worlds major religions. I think they are all wrong in one way or another. My evidence for *** (God, if you prefer), seems to be built into me. I have great respect for the views of people like Richard Dawkins - it seems that, for them, the evidence is not built in, and they refuse to commit intellectual (or spiritual) treason. Good for them.


Edited by redewenur (02/15/07 01:17 AM)
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
Page 10 of 35 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 34 35 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.