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 (), 393 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
The universes expansion accelleration solved.
by Marchimedes
05/14/20 07:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 4
Page 22 of 35 < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 34 35 >
Topic Options
#19633 - 03/26/07 10:51 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Wayne, I have a feeling that we have someone in our midst, who believes in, and fears, tr?lls.

My World Book Dictionary defines a troll (in Scandinavian myth) "as an ugly dwarf or giant, with supernatual (God-like powers?) powers living underground or in caves." :lol:

If I believed in trolls I, too, would be fearful. Who believes in trolls, anyone? Anyone? Step up and declare yourself!!!





Edited by Revlgking (03/26/07 10:52 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
.
#19731 - 03/29/07 12:12 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Wikipedia have a more relevant definition of trolls.

They:

"often contribute no useful information to the thread"

"concentrate almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation"



I would add to the definition.

They:

"are here to proselytize and will use every opportunity to inappropriately advertise their pet philosophy. This may include constantly linking to (and promoting) their favourite websites."


In this case, it will be helpful for you to understand that bringing unsubstantiated New Age thinking (that is so woolly and pliable that it defies clear and rational definition or examination) to a site devoted to scientific and rational discourse will inevitably be seen as TROLLING.

It also seems clear to us that your only interest in science is when it can be used to justify your warm, cuddly nothingness about God.

I have seen your website and one of your key points is that the search for knowledge is more important than finding the knowledge - the journey, more important than the destination.

If scientists thought this way we would have no chance of eliminating cancer, because science requires concrete results.

You may want to stop wasting bandwidth here and find a more receptive audience somewhere else, because until you show an interest in rational debate, you will find little response here and even less respect.

Sorry for being so direct, but you are annoying a number of people here with your long, pointless posts (like 1000+ words on the 'Church of the Godless').

Blacknad.

Top
#19732 - 03/29/07 12:17 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Blacknad]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Some useful advice for spotting and dealing with Trolls.

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html


  • ignore postings that you suspect may be from trolls.
  • if you must respond to a troll posting, don't get involved in the argument; limit it to pointing out that the posting may be considered as trollish, for the benefit of other list members.


Blacknad.

Top
#19739 - 03/29/07 01:48 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Blacknad]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Thank you Blacknad for reminding everyone that the best way to deal with a tr?ll like revlgking is:

"ignore postings that you suspect may be from trolls."

Now lets do it!

He has demonstrated repeatedly that he is arrogant, contemptuous of us, revels in his self-anointed superior, and has no interest in science but rather is using (and abusing) this forum to promote his own personal brand of koolaid.

I know it is an incredible temptation to respond to his intentional provocations and feigned protestations of innocence. But he is what he is ... and that is an unrepentant tr?ll.

No need to explain it to him ... he knows it ... he doesn't care.

If he posts ... no matter what he posts ... please do not respond.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19742 - 03/29/07 03:21 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
What is the point of the bitter diatribe, by DA Morgan and Blacknad, that appears above?

What does it have to do with EVIDENCE FOR GOD? Perhaps maybe it may have a place in the thread I started on KNOCK THE REVS AND RELIGIONS...but not here. Maybe I need to start a thread on EVIDENCE FOR DEMONOLOGY, EVIL AND THE LIKE...?

....To keep things on topic, I will move what I say here to the Knock the Revs...thread.

To Kate: If anything I write needs to be changed or improved on, feel to correct and instruct me. I welcome all contructive criticisms.
============


Edited by Revlgking (03/29/07 07:06 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#19747 - 03/29/07 06:16 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
"The Rev's latest post seems to agree. OK guys, maybe we should stop arguing over whether some form of indeterminate god exists and get stuck into fundies of all religions, not just the three above I might add. Unfortunately, as people feel threatened they withdraw into their own circle, which on a wider view includes those fundies." TerryNZ

Terry, I am not quite sure what you mean, here. What do you mean by "the fundies of all religion"?

BTW, I do agree that Reformed Jews do have much in common with Liberal Christians than they do with Ultra Orthodox Jews. The same is true of Liberal Christians. We have little in common with Ultra Orthodox Christians. Liberalism is more of an attitude than it is a set of specific doctrines. Is this what you are trying to say?

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

Top
#19765 - 03/30/07 03:02 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
OK. I'll explain. As people feel threatened they often retreat into a more extreme version of their beliefs rather than adjust those beliefs to fit the facts as demonstrated. They sort of close ranks and support one another. The extremists can become the dominant personalities in those groups (the squeeky door gets the oil). As science shows more and more that ancient Holy Books are no more than political propaganda from their period many people become defensive. They move towards more fundamentalist intepretations of those books.

All 'mentalists are a problem for others. I doubt if anyone at SAGG would doubt that 'mentalist Muslims are a threat to stability in the world. Most might agree that 'mentalist Christians have also become a threat through manipulation by some politicians in "the West". That 'mentalist Jews are as much a cause of problems in the Middle east as are 'mentalist Muslims and 'mentalist Christians is less often conceded. In India 'mentalist Hindus often cause trouble. I'm not aware of Buddhists being a problem anywhere but I'd be surprised if they weren't.

Top
#19775 - 03/30/07 03:48 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Sounds good to me, Terry. Refresh my memory: Where on the spectrum do you stand, theologically?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#19946 - 04/05/07 09:14 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Sounds good to me, Terry. Refresh my memory: Where on the spectrum do you stand, theologically?


BTW, Terry, I am sure that you are aware that there are certain things which are true by virtue of self-evidence, agreed?

For example, you do not have to prove to me that fresh air is good for me. By personal experience, I soon learn that I--Can any creature?--cannot survive, physically, without it. Can anyone?

Also, it is my sincere opinion that G?D is self-evident.

As St. John put it: G?D is Spirit. Note that John did not write that G?D is "A spirit".

It seems to me that John meant to speak of G?D is as real as the very air we breathe, physically, mentally and spiritually. It is not surprising, then that John also wrote that G?D is love--the basic spiritually-based human emotion.

I challenge atheists to prove and demonstrate to us, here, that it is possible for any creature to survive, physically, without breath. And what truly human being can happily survive, mentally, spiritually, without the love of others?



Edited by Revlgking (04/05/07 09:38 PM)

Top
#19950 - 04/05/07 10:10 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I challenge atheists, agnostics, deists, true-believers, and other sentient and semi-sentient entities to not respond to this intentional tr?ll.

Thank you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19956 - 04/05/07 10:48 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
DA Morgan, you just did!!! Thanks for the bite. laugh
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#19970 - 04/06/07 10:42 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Evidence for God?

"The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?"



Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

Paul Davies
Superforce, p. 243
The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203


?The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.?

Freeman Dyson
Disturbing the Universe
New York: Harper & Row, 1979, p. 250


"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Albert Einstein


?The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ?. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.?

Stephen Hawking


"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Sir Fred Hoyle


"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers


?On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special ?. It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.?

Robert Naeye
?OK, Where Are They??
Astronomy, July 1996, p.36


"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."

Allan Sandage (former PHD student of Edwin Hubble)


?Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me ? I should like to find a genuine loophole.?

Arthur Eddington
?The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics?
Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450


Einstein tried to avoid such a beginning by creating and holding onto his cosmological ?fudge factor? in his equations until 1931, when Hubble?s astronomical observations caused him to grudgingly accept ?the necessity for a beginning.?

A. Vibert Douglas
?Forty Minutes With Einstein?
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
Vol. 50 (1956), p. 100

Einstein quote cited in

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 107-108


?The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.?

Fred Hoyle
The Intelligent Universe
New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, 1983), p. 13


?If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ?creation? of some sort is forced upon us.?

Barry Parker
Creation?the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202


Compared to the alternative of supposing that matter and energy somehow always existed, British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, ?It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo?Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.?

Edmund Whittaker cited in

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 121


?We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation.?

Barry Parker
Creation?the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 201-202


Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant ?the greatest blunder of my life.? (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: ?The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble?s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).? (cited by Barry Parker, Creation?the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire ?to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.? (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality?Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 135


?There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.?

George Smoot - 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics


?Until the late 1910?s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn?t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.?

George Smoot and Keay Davidson
Wrinkles in Time
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.30


?There is no explanation in the Big Bang theory for the seemingly fortuitous fact that the density of matter has just the right value for the evolution of a benign, life supporting universe.?

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers, second edition
New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 93


?The Hubble Law is one of the great discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis.?

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers, second edition
New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 53


?Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can?t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.?

Robert Wilson
An interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 157


?If you?re religious, it?s like looking at God.?

Milton Rothman
?What Went Before??
Free Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1 (Winter, 1992/93), p.12

Context: George Smoot commenting on the discovery by the COBE Science Working Group of the expected ?ripples? in the microwave background radiation. He called these fluctuations ?the fingerprints from the Maker.? Smoot draws attention not only to the fact that his team had provided more evidence for the creation event, but for a ?finely orchestrated? creation event. Stephen Hawking was so impressed with this finding that he called it ?the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.?

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 177


?How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed??

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28


?In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is?we?re talking fifteen billion years and we?re talking huge distances here?in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it?s actually quite a precise job. And I don?t know if you?ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it?s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it?s within one percent.?

George Smoot in an interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 168


?The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated.?

George Smoot and Keay Davidson
Wrinkles in Time
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.135


?The question of ?the beginning? is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians.?

George Smoot and Keay Davidson
Wrinkles in Time
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.189


?the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.?

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers, second edition
New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 14


Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking mentions the ratio between the masses of the proton and the electron as one of the many fundamental numbers in nature, and comments, ?The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.?

Stephen W. Hawking
A Brief History of Time?From the Big Bang to Black Holes
New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 125


"Every one of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if electrical forces were much stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form ... But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. if it were, protons would combine too easily, and the sun ...(assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up to now) would explode like a thermonuclear bomb."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153


"If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe."

Hugh Ross
The Fingerprint of God, second edition
Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co.
1989, 1991, pp. 121-122


"Stronger (nuclear) forces would cause all of the primordial hydrogen -- not just 25% of it -- to be synthesized into helium early in the history of the universe. And without hydrogen, the stars could never begin to shine."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153


?To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.?

George F. R. Ellis
Before the Beginning ? Cosmology Explained
London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, p. 97




?? what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God?s invisible qualities ? His eternal power and divine nature ? have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.?

Paul
Letter to the Romans 1:19:20


Blacknad.

Top
#19975 - 04/06/07 12:55 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Blacknad]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I would be more surprised by the lack of existence than I am by existence itself.

There has never been an instant in time when there was non-existence.

And, if you think about it (a bit whimsically perhaps), there has never been a moment in your life when you have seen evidence of life not existing. You've no evidence of it being any other way and you never will.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19979 - 04/06/07 02:55 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
But surely there there has only been existence for 15 billion years.

As time and existence are inextricably bound then it doesn't mean anything to say, "There has never been an instant in time when there was non-existence."

Other than the last 15 billion years there was a state of non-existence. Not that we can really consider it a state.

Anyway, in terms of the first quote, it is essentially talking about mind and not just the existence of matter, energy etc.

Blacknad.

Top
#19980 - 04/06/07 04:38 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Blacknad]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
THE FOLLOWING IS OFFERED IN THE SPIRIT OF DIALOGUE, NOT DEBATE.
IN MY OPINION:
G--stands for all the goodness there is
?--stands for all the laws and order that there are
D--stands for all the discipline and design (beauty) that there is

You quote F.R. Ellis, Blacknad:
?To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.?

Before the Beginning ? Cosmology Explained
London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, p. 97
========================================================
Then you quote ROMAN'S 1:19-32, where PAUL WRITES TO THE GENTILE WORLD. He writes about the nature of idolatry and how it can affect how we live our lives, morally and ethically. He also writes about THE SELF-EVIDENT NATURE OF G?D:

?? what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God?s invisible qualities ? His eternal power and divine nature ? have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.?

THE PHILLIPS TRANSLATION
CHECK OUT http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CP06Romans.htm
AND http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/JBPhillips.htm

I like the clear way The Rev J.B. Phillips translates Paul's words. Here is the full section:

The righteousness of God and the sin of man

1:18-21 - Now the holy anger of God is disclosed from Heaven against the godlessness and evil of those men who render truth dumb and inoperative by their wickedness. It is not that they do not know the truth about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known, thus leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still further into the dark.

1:22-23 - Behind a facade of "wisdom" they became just fools, fools who would exchange the glory of the eternal God for an imitation image of a mortal man, or of creatures that run or fly or crawl.

1:24 - They gave up God: and therefore God gave them up - to be the playthings of their own foul desires in dishonouring their own bodies.

The fearful consequence of deliberate atheism

BTW, I would like to dialogue with Paul about what he really means here. I am not one of those who say it is impossible for sincere atheists to be moral and ethical. In my opinion, not all theists are automatically paragons of virtue.

1:25-27 - These men deliberately forfeited the truth of God and accepted a lie, paying homage and giving service to the creature instead of to the Creator, who alone is worthy to be worshipped for ever and ever, amen. God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another. Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity.

1:28-32 - Moreover, since they considered themselves too high and mighty to acknowledge God, he allowed them to become the slaves of their degenerate minds, and to perform unmentionable deeds. They became filled with wickedness, rottenness, greed and malice; their minds became steeped in envy, murder, quarrelsomeness, deceitfulness and spite. They became whisperers-behind-doors, stabbers-in-the-back, God-haters; they overflowed with insolent pride and boastfulness, and their minds teemed with diabolical invention. They scoffed at duty to parents, they mocked at learning, recognised no obligations of honour, lost all natural affection, and had no use for mercy. More than this - being well aware of God's pronouncement that all who do these things deserve to die, they not only continued their own practices, but did not hesitate to give their thorough approval to others who did the same.
==================

Interestingly, scholars have long since known that the ancient Greeks, for example, Seneca--active in the time of Paul--had developed the "argument from design". The Greek term 'gnoston' can mean 'what is known' as well as, 'what can be known'.

NB: 2:14-15 - When the Gentiles, who have no knowledge of the Law, act in accordance with it by the light of nature, they show that they have a law in themselves, for they demonstrate the effect of a law operating in their own hearts. Their own consciences endorse the existence of such a law, for there is something which condemns or commends their actions.

2:16 - We may be sure that all this will be taken into account in the day of true judgment, when God will judge men's secret lives by Jesus Christ, as my Gospel plainly states.
=============================================

The character of G?D in creation is spoken of, frequently, in the Hebrew scriptures as being reflected in nature. Psalm 19:1 exclaims: "How clearly the sky reveals God's glory."


Edited by Revlgking (04/06/07 07:18 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20042 - 04/07/07 10:35 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Posters and lurkers: I am amazed at the number of clicks on this thread. What is it, over 5,000? Shortly after Tim started it, it seemed doomed to being dumped.

Lurkers, what are you afraid of? There are thousands of clicks on this thread...get involved, for, against, or bored. No matter what your opinion, it will receive respect from this quarter, okay? If you wish, you can remain anonymous.

Terry and Tim: Are you gone to your final rest? smile


Edited by Revlgking (04/07/07 10:37 PM)

Top
#20050 - 04/08/07 12:04 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
hiya, yeah, been busy, but im back a little. wow, 5000 clicks! cool! let me ask DA why he would call me a troll? What is it to you if i have a set belief which sustains me throughout my days? And how are yall back at SAGG?

Top
#20063 - 04/08/07 04:35 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Welcome back, Tim. Good to see you are not afraid of being flamed. I suspect that many lurkers have this fear, thus, they keep away. Sad! If I knew you well enough I may differ in opinion from you, but I refuse to stoop to flaming, too judgmental. Feel free to express your beliefs and opinions. As you know, I am a minister. Do you know any other clergy who would like to get involved?

If you would like to read some controversial stuff about what is going on between Christianity and Islam check out this item from the NEW YORKER, April 8:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_kramer?currentPage=1
======================================================
BTW, look at the clicks on the whole section. They are approaching 7000. Obviously people do like to read more than hard science, not that hard science is unimportant.

What is your opinion regarding hard science. How open are you when it comes to the theory of evolution versus creation? Have you heard of emanation?

THE FOLLOWING IS MOSTLY PHILOSOPHY AT THIS POINT, AN OPINION, NOT HARD SCIENCE; BUT INTERESTING. In my opinion it sounds rational to me, but still an opinion. smile
====================
The word "Emanation" comes from the Latin e-manare, "to flow forth". The cosmos and finite beings are all seen as having emerged out of the Absolute Reality through a sort of "out-flowing".

Metaphors are with the ocean (the Absolute) and the waves (the Universe); the Sun (the Absolute) and the Light that shines from it (the Universe); a fountain (the Absolute) which overflows (the universe); and so on.

According to Emanationism, Creation occurs by a process of emanation - "out-flowing". The entire cosmos, and even all the Gods and Godheads beyond the Cosmos, has come about through emanation.
===============
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanationism
http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/emanation.htm

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm...FTG5LgWCM2RRrSQ
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20084 - 04/08/07 08:13 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Warren Offline
Member

Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 45
Loc: Paducah, Kentucky
Rev, that New Yorker article was quite a read-- long and challenging but worthwhile. Made me realize how little I knew about Catholicism. While I was under the impression-- I guess correctly-- that the last Pope was more "ecumenical" than the present one, I hadn't realized that the later was considered "...the first prominent theologian to sit on Peter?s throne since the eighteenth century." I can certainly begin to see why the world's faiths are so far apart on even the cosmic issues that should unite them.

Evidence for God... I don't even think the question "Does God (or a god) exist" is even relevant. The divine, if one uses that term, is simply whatever is ultimate, or ultimate reality, in their life. As far as evidence for a being-like God or god, I don't think there is any. If there was, scientists would be developing theories about God, just like they do about black holes or the space/time continuum.

(BTW this is my first post-- I'm an online friend of Rev. King's and a fellow unitheist.)

Top
#20085 - 04/08/07 10:16 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Warren]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Blacknad. One of your quotes said, "I can?t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.?

Now that's a big jump don't you think? Six days, humans created miraculously on the sixth day? It took a long time for God to decide one small group of people, in no way different to their neighbours, would be his chosen ones. I see no similarity with Genesis at all.

Rev. You earlier asked me to remind you where in the theological spectrum I sat. It is very easy for you to research it yourself. My first post on this thread was made on page two. The only post I would now perhaps prefer to withdraw was one where I quoted a writer who seemed as frustrated with 'mentalist religiosists as I was at the time. I'm sure you'll realise which post it was.

Top
Page 22 of 35 < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 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.