What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?

Posted by:

What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 03:41 AM

Consider: If you seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", what would you need as that proof. And if your proof is fulfilled then would you believe it anyway?. I do not mean proof of religion. I mean proof of "God" in the sense of a SINGLE entity responsible for the creation of the known universe. I am not saying "God" exists one way or another. Just posed this to "people of 'science'" (of which I consider myself to be) to see how they think about it.
Posted by: hugomoly

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 10:08 AM

Depends on where one has grown up: for most white people (Arabs included), God is a harsh father-like person who likes to play sadistic games with people, like
A: the prohibition to eat from one particular tree, resulting in Man being expelled from the paradise of Eden.
B: building the Babylonian tower causes God to create different languages to sabotage the mentioned construction project.
C: flooding the earth, thereby murdering all life on earth, except for skipper Noah and his crew.

Not to mention the last big screwup of the Cristian God: letting his son be tortured to death, culminating in crucifixion, justified by the notion that this way all the sins of mankind be washed away.

If this mismanagement would have been performed by a normal guy, he would be imprisoned.
It is this kind of inconsequent measuring with two different measures that is really damaging to young children when they are raised cristian.

So if a God like that should be found, take him to court and let him account for all the harm He did!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 11:48 AM

It is obvious that you do not understand the concept of God.Learn new religions and probably you will find some of your answers.
Do not mix the Science and Religion. It serves no practical purpose.
Science allows you to master the art of knowing the cause and effectand Even after knowing so much can you tell me where the next such event of disaster will take place. Forget about the 'why' part of it.
Some answers you are asking for is not available with the science also.
We have just begun our journey into the tomorrow.
How long we will walk together who knows?
I hope then we will get some of the answers.
If you are really interested in solving those religious riddles then I would request you to seek a guidance from a religious master.(preferably Buddha)
For other things we are here.
Posted by: finchbeak

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 12:01 PM

Well said, Hugo.
It's not a god I would like to know.

dkv - Hugo was talking specifically about the Christian god, as worshipped by biblical literalists in the US.

It's hard to say what evidence of God's existence I would find compelling. I can imagine limitless dramatic things God could do to demonstrate his/her existence. I can say that I have never encountered any evidence at all of God's existence, despite 30-odd of examining nature as carefully as I know how. I don't think that "proves" there is no God. Science isn't about "proof" anyway. The most reasonable theory to hold is the simplest one that explains the evidence. That's Occam's razor. Occam leads me, tentatively, to work with the theory that the universe has no intelligent being at the wheel.
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 01:59 PM

DKV, I see your point. Science perhaps can not explain God. I guess what I was really trying to ask the question for those who would believe in God only if they had "scientific proof". Not for those who have faith alone.
Great replies folks! I love this website
Posted by: Uncle Al

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 02:45 PM

You are wrong. You aren't even debatable. Science and religion are orthogonal.

Science is empiricism - mathematical modeling of observation constrained by real world correspondence. Science must be predictive and verifiable. A theory cannot be proven, only validated by prediction vs. observation. A theory that makes a bad prediction is falsified - wrong and dead. One blooper and out.

Quote:
Consider: If you seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", what would you need as that proof.
That is a statement of profound ignorance. By definition, religion cannot be proven. If it were proven faith would be destroyed and it would no longer be religion.

Religion is faith - irrational (by definition!) belief that exists independent of observation.

1) That which supports religion supports religion.

2) That which ignores religion supports religion.

3) That which contradicts religion supports religion - test of faith; act of the Devil.

4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unfit to judge, or is an agent of the Devil.

All they want is your money. Toss in self-serving exercise of political power and impression of unending travail as proof of of God's love - test of faith! Proof of the Devil.

The divide is irreconcilable. Science is the discovery of knowledge and its employment to change the world for the better. Religion has one uniform, ultimate sin: Knowledge! Faith demands denial of reality. Faith falters when suffering is relieved.

Science puts you in jumbo jets. Faith puts you onto your bloody knees. Make a choice. How many dead babies do you want to bury? (not uphill of your drinking wells, ditto latrines, unless you are particularly eager for more tests of faith.)

There is an anthill outside my home. Every Thursday the ants gather to worship me. They all chew off the end of one of their legs to show their sincerity. They know that if they truly please me I will give them a giant Tim Horton's donut and they will never be hungry again. I hose them full blast to smash the nuisance into mud and ruin. They always return.

Test of faith.
Posted by: Yet Another Crank

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 03:57 PM

Such unnecessary vitriol, slamming the questioner without bothering to provide the simple answer to the simple question asked. For shame.

To answer your question, I can be satisfied in a couple of ways.

The easiest would be to posit that God does NOT exist, reason what kinds of things would logically and necessarily follow from that, and then demonstrate that only one of those things is contradicted by observed and reliable data. This would thereby disprove the nonexistence of God, and thus God must exist.

The hardest would be to somehow get me to directly observe God by means of one of my physical senses, in a meaningful way.

Any other kind of proof would work so long as it is (1) based on objective evidence, that can be observed by others, (2) accurately explains the observed data, (3) contains no leaps of logic or unsupported conclusions, (4) can be tested by experiment, and (5) reliably predicts future observations.
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 04:21 PM

I did not say "prove religion" I said proof of God. That is not one and the same. Thank you Yet another Crank
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/22/05 04:37 PM

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - A C Clarke.

There is no amount of evidence that can prove or disprove the existence of a deity. None. God is outside the scope of what science can study.

The Dark Ages never yielded to the Golden Age of Scientific Discovery until we learned to separate what was knowable (in the sense of being physically confirmed) from what was unknowable.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 05:57 AM

You are wrong. You aren't even debatable. Science and religion are orthogonal.
REP: True
===========================
Science is empiricism - mathematical modeling of observation constrained by real world correspondence.
REP: Not true.Science as a whole does not depend upon Maths.It uses Maths where ever required and it tries to reduce reality to a possible Matehmatical Model. Model need not be accurate.
Model tries to explain what is observed and makes some sensible prediction. Sometimes it succeeds exceptionally and sometimes it fails miserably.
======================================
Science must be predictive and verifiable.
REP: Prediction today is driven by probability.
The concept verifications are subjected to the assumptions of statistics(which is maths) and the defined event space. There are ways to deduce results without using probability or statistics.
==================================
A theory cannot be proven, only validated by prediction vs. observation. A theory that makes a bad prediction is falsified - wrong and dead.
One blooper and out.
REP: A wrong theory is still in use. No one tries to derive the exact solution to a problem.
For various reasons it is not possible to solve a real life problem with enough entropy with enough precision using exact Maths.Abstraction is central to the working of this world.And then you have n body problems.
======================================
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider: If you seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", what would you need as that proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a statement of profound ignorance. By definition, religion cannot be proven. If it were proven faith would be destroyed and it would no longer be religion.
REP: Religion can not be proven to anyone else but yourself. It is your belief and it can be a positive belief.Better than the faith in Hydrogen Bomb.
==================================
Religion is faith - irrational (by definition!) belief that exists independent of observation.
1) That which supports religion supports religion.
REP: This applies to every field as the base assumptions of a subject can not be verified by some other domain.
===================================
2) That which ignores religion supports religion.
REP: Unfortunately many today do not understand it and such a support is not religious.
But it happens every where.
==========================================
3) That which contradicts religion supports religion - test of faith; act of the Devil.
REP: Contradiction is allowed in Science.
Otherwise how can Matter and Wave co-exist.
Either you define same reality using the harcoded physicality or using the wave but not both.
=========================================
4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unfit to judge, or is an agent of the Devil.
REP: Criticize after you have understood what is meant by God. Seek advice from other religions as well.
==================================
All they want is your money. Toss in self-serving exercise of political power and impression of unending travail as proof of of God's love - test of faith! Proof of the Devil.
REP:Yes it is politically sensitive but so is the bomb.
====================================
The divide is irreconcilable. Science is the discovery of knowledge and its employment to change the world for the better. Religion has one uniform, ultimate sin: Knowledge!
REP: Not true. It has its own book of Knowledge.
The Sceince(as we know) can not claim to be sole owner of it otherwise we would not have evolved into human beings.
=======================================
Faith demands denial of reality. Faith falters when suffering is relieved.
REP: Not true. There are religions which believe in both. Hinduism enforces reality without denying God.
======================================
Science puts you in jumbo jets. Faith puts you onto your bloody knees. Make a choice. How many dead babies do you want to bury? (not uphill of your drinking wells, ditto latrines, unless you are particularly eager for more tests of faith.)
REP: Faith helps you after you die.
=============================================
There is an anthill outside my home. Every Thursday the ants gather to worship me. They all chew off the end of one of their legs to show their sincerity. They know that if they truly please me I will give them a giant Tim Horton's donut and they will never be hungry again. I hose them full blast to smash the nuisance into mud and ruin. They always return.
REP: You feed or they eat.But they must exist.
It is simple.
======================================
Test of faith.
REP: True.
Posted by: Gemini T.

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 05:58 AM

True, God can neither be proved to exist or not! It?s folly to even discus the existence of God, because all the attributes we, or religion impose upon Him/ She, has to be wrong.
The reason for this is if God exists, understanding what God is, or the mind of God is beyond we poor mortals. If God doesn?t exist why talk of God. The Cosmos is either contingent or not contingent. However, I must confess the topic is fun.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 06:10 AM

God is not beyond an individual's comprehension.
There are ways and means to acheive it.
Posted by: Gemini T.

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 07:50 AM

dkv
You can IF you think St Anslem?s Ontological Argument proves the existence of God. However, I do not mean by faith, but absolute proof. With all respect to you, I don?t believe you can, if so please tell me how.
Your friend in discussion Gemini T.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 12:52 PM

Some special brownies and lots of people think they have special insights into the almighty. There may be something to it, but it's not scientific.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 12:52 PM

As I said it is not part of the Scientific Discussion.The concept is as alien as Maths and also as relevant as Maths.
Concept of God has been applied repeatedly in the past and even today it affects millions across the globe.
Getting rid of it is impossible and accepting it without understanding is dangerous.
I have no proof. I leave it your curiosity.
Research and find out what does it mean.
Do not confine yourself to xyz religion.
None of them expresses what they are trying to express.
Do not expect miracles.It doesnt happen or may be it does ..
i dont know.
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 05:02 PM

Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 05:16 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrMung:
[qb] The replies seem to be : The scientific method can not be applied to answer the existence of God. An agnostic says "there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility of God's existence; an atheist "concludes that God does not exist". Perhaps this is the wrong forum for these kinds of questions. But is "seeing a UFO" or "believing in intelligent alien life" the same as "believing in God"? I do not know.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 07:45 PM

UFOs and intelligent alien life - to the extent they are not mystical or supernatural phenomena - are susceptible to the scientific method, at least putatively.

UFOs exist. You see something in the sky. You don't know what it is, therefore it is a UFO.

The possibility of intelligent alien life is distinct from UFOs. The Drake equation is - to my mind - just a back of the envelop type of computation. Rather, the equation is probably valid as a model, but the inputs are just guesses. So maybe it's like a Fermi problem - but still a string of wild guesses.

The existence of intelligent aliens is separate from the question of UFOs. The existence of aliens is separate from whether they might ever have visited the Earth.

While I consider the idea that aliens have visited the earth silly without some compelling evidence to the contrary, I don't think all claims for unlikely phenomena are equally unlikely.

If Bigfoot and Loch Ness were not hoaxes, they wouldn't require science to be rewritten. These are very unlikely, but not utterly ridiculous. Well, at least they are not AS ridiculous as, say, alien visitors - which are an order of magnitude more unlikely. Even more unlikely than that would be something like ESP or remote viewing.

To summarize: there are a lot of absurd ideas, but not all absurd ideas are equally absurd.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/23/05 07:48 PM

Forgot to summarize the actual point:

Even though Bigfoot, UFOs, alien visitors, and ESP are absurd notions with imaginary research supporting them, they are not beyond actual scientific study. Bigfoot is a scientifically analyzable concept, as is the evidence for it. It may be hoax, but we can examine even faked evidence.

Same for the other absurd ideas. OTOH, God is beyond scientific research. It's the epitome of supernaturalism. Science does nature. It doesn't acknowledge supernature, let alone dispute within it.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/25/05 09:11 AM

Science does nature!!??
I thought we use Science to describe Nature.
We assume Nature is comprehensible using the binary communication.
BTW,What is Science?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/25/05 04:34 PM

Yea. Science "does" Nature. You know ... in like a ... carnival sense.
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/25/05 06:03 PM

dkv, ever the instigator, defining science is indeed opening a can of worms... wink
Posted by: Nominal

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 08/26/05 03:25 AM

For me to consider God as factual I would have to run "God-facts" through the scientific method. Simply, if there are no God-facts which I can accumulate then there is no debate to be had.
If I am strolling down a dusty road and in my purview a burning bush speaks to me: a) I've had a psychotic snap, or any other inumerable explainations....
Further, to clarify, perhaps God is not meant to be taken as fact..but to only exist through faith.
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/07/05 01:20 AM

Folks, if you don't believe in a God of miracles there is no chance you will believe the God of the Bible, who you may find to be the author of science and not the author of religion.

Make a study of Job and Isaiah using the original texts and then come back and say that God is not the author of science. If you have not or do not intend to make this study then don't reply to this post. It would be both futile and unscientific.

Rod
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/07/05 03:51 PM

Oneplanet:

Please note that this is scienceagogo.com. It is not fantasyagogo. It is not needmymediationagogo. It is not psychoticsanonymousagogo.

How can one study Job and Isiah. There is nothing to study. The text has no author. The text has been mistranslated numerous times. The text contains no references to supporting works. The text is unverifiable by any lucid definition.

What you are actually doing is inviting people to become brain-washed: I decline your invitation. I like being sentient.

You, on the other hand, are welcome to your hallucinogen so long as you don't give your drug to impressionable children.
Posted by: jjw

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/07/05 05:58 PM

We tend to overlook the basics between religion and science. Proof that either thought process is superior or factual can not be found.

I was born to a catholic family and went 8 years to catholic grammer sdhool. I have not followed the religion since leaving home many years ago.
The error is that science tells us to beleive that MATTER always was and always will be. Religion tells us GOD always was and always will be. They originate with the same hypothetical and I, if forced to make a choice on faith will go for the belief based on faith as opposed to a lesser hypothetical offering no better proof.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/08/05 05:38 PM

jjw004 wrote:
"We tend to overlook the basics between religion and science. Proof that either thought process is superior or factual can not be found."

Absolute nonsense. Here's a simple test.

Take one Jew, one Christian (of any denomination), one Sunni Moslem, one Shiite moslem, one Buddhist, and one animist and put them into a room.

Test 1: Ask them to watch water freeze. See if they can agree on a single set of facts to describe what happened.

Test 2: Ask them to read each other's religious scriptures and to agree on a single set of facts to describe the origin of the universe.

Case closed.

You understanding of science ... "tells us to beleive that MATTER always was and always will be" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science since, at least, the 1800s.
Posted by: Sparky

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/10/05 05:34 AM

Hmmm your general concept of religion and god, seem to be out of sync with my concepts, so saying that I believe in a god would be talking past you as we don't share the same understandings of the words.

I hold with A. Clark: advanced science is like magic, and if we went back in time far enough, we would be like gods to those people. In fact saving someone who was suffering from dehydration, and a nasty spear wound to the abdomen would be difficult, but not impossible with today's technology. I don't think a race capable of space travel would find it hard at all.

Next postulate that there are other beings somewhere in the universe. Not unreasonable. Next postulate that they have had communication with our earth in times past. That may be a stretch. And I would suppose that would be where you might begin to look for proof of a God.

Ah but you say, that an extra terrestrial is not the same as the Creator of the Universe. Well, the old Hebrew texts don't say the same thing as our modern bibles. Religion has kind of gone it's own way.

A non-orthodox translation does not find mention of creating out of nothing, it finds something more akin to organizing existing matter. And Eloheim is a strange Hebrew word. First it is plural, not singular. It could mean "the Gods", but a more orthodox translation would be "the supreme God". Hmmm sounds like a highly superior extra terrestrial race to me.

Ok well I have offended all the major religions of earth, but I think there is wisdom in the teachings of the Man of Peace. I think I have see things in humans and in prayer that look like magic to me. And I assume that this God does follow the laws of science, and when it seems like magic, I assume that I just have a bit more science to learn, or maybe our understanding is simply missing something. "Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness (truth) for they shall be called scientists, er filled."

What I find awe inspiring is the beauty and simplicity of the Universe (picture of the horse head cluster as my desktop), and the effect of love on my motivation in life. God is not to be proven, God is to be discovered.

Enjoy life
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/10/05 06:02 AM

Sparky wrote:
"Next postulate that there are other beings somewhere in the universe."

A postulate?

Please understand that I have no doubt that there are other sentient beings in the universe: It is a very big place.

But from a purely scientific perspective I can give you a huge amount of evidence that would support the proposition that sentient life exists nowhere else. You can not provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

So to be intellectually honest, today, there is no more evidence for little green men than there is for large purple (invisible) rhinos. The difference is that intelligent people thing there is value in searching for the green men. No one with an IQ over room temperature seriously expects to send up a probe and find proof that there is a factual basis for the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Posted by: Sparky

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/10/05 06:27 AM

DA wrote:
But from a purely scientific perspective I can give you a huge amount of evidence that would support the proposition that sentient life exists nowhere else.

Hmmm, every month I read articals on how new systems are discovered that say our system is not as unique as we once thought it was. To think that we are the only beings in the milky way is being a little conceited. To say that we are the only ones in the universe would be a bet that you could get very long odds on from any statistician.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/10/05 06:18 PM

Please try re-reading what I wrote.

I personally agree with you. But suspecting something is very different from having a shred of evidence to support that belief system.

What separates scientists from theology victims is the ability to acknowledge when there is a lack of evidence.

That there are billions of galaxies, billions of stars, with billions of planets ... even billions of planets with oceans and life-forms ... does not provide a shred of evidence that more than one contains sentient life.

Of course I think there is. But I am intellectually honest enough to separate my belief system from what is actually known. Try it.
Posted by: Sparky

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/10/05 09:10 PM

Well I am looking at it from a statistical point of view. If something appears probable, that is generally good enough to start looking for proof or at least try an experiment or two, or maybe spend some time thinking about the problem to see if any light can be shed on the subject.

This thing you guys do of tossing out any idea or different point of view because there is not solid proof seems to be a hangover from your fear of theological argument, which I am not advocating. (Re: your reference to a belief system).

That is not how research works. You have to open your mind to other explanations of phenomena, try to come up with ways of testing those viewpoints, and then perform the tests. This may be the work of years or even of generations before we know for sure.

The problem of extra terrestrial life is a real consideration. NASA has done extensive thought work on what to look for and how to prevent contamination within our own solar system. We are pretty sure that if life is found in our solar system, it will be most primitive. Looking outside of our system opens up more possibilities. Right now most of the work I have seen is in identifying stars with planetary systems, discussing how common these may be, and trying to calculate the probabilities of a planet similar to the earth being formed. It may be shear chance, or there may be mechanisms that tend to make metal bearing planets form close enough to the star to be useable in a liquid water temperature range. After all, our four inner planets are all metal bearing, and the other planets (excluding that over grown asteroid Pluto) are gas giants with metal bearing moons. We had four shots at the right distance, one hit (earth), one was very close (mars). And one may eventually be terra-formed (Venus) enough to be of some use if just for energy production and mining in two hundred to three hundred years.

I personally think that such musings are worthwhile brainwork although not much is provable in your sense. Experiments are being done on carbon forms and organic molecules that could form in space under ultraviolet and other radiation when the carbon is frozen in ice. The results are "curious" as Spock would say.

To flat out say there is no proof of life in other star systems and then to dismiss the idea shows a strange belief system that doesn't resemble what I have known of scientific enquiry.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/11/05 01:01 AM

Sparky wrote:
"Well I am looking at it from a statistical point of view"

Let me answer by quoting Samuel Clemens

"There are three kinds of liars. Liars, damned liars, and statisticians."

Nothing has changed. Statistically there is a probability. In terms of a single shred of evidence: There is none.

You further wrote:
"To flat out say there is no proof of life in other star systems and then to dismiss the idea shows a strange belief system that doesn't resemble what I have known of scientific enquiry."

Which is it? You are hard of reading? hard of comprehending? or hard of thinking?

Not once in anything I have written have I dismissed the idea. In fact I went to great pains to indicate that I did not. You really need to examine the question I just wrote to you, above, and try to determine where the problem lies.
Posted by: Sparky

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/11/05 04:30 AM

DA your insults are funny ways of accepting ideas. Mark Twain was a man who made a living from being funny. You one line dismissal of statistics isn't funny for a guy who slugged though many a college statistics course and then chaired a research committee on the application of statistics in his industry. Maybe you just have a funny way of talking to people and encouraging further communication with insults. Instead of adding to the subject, you just try to pick it apart.

Back up a bit and try to suggest ideas and irregularities that either promote or demote the ideas of life and eventually intelligent life existing elsewhere. You keep drumming on the fact that there is not one shred of evidence. Well a few years ago, there wasn?t one shred of evidence that there were planets around other stars. Someone decided to look in an ingenious way and we are finding gas giant type planets with out much trouble these days. So not having evidence for a probability is only important after one has thoroughly checked for that evidence.

I suggested the occurrence of 4 non-gas giants as the inner planets (metal bearing planets, may just be the results of the gas being blown away by the solar wind). is a hopeful sign that there is a mechanism that would promote life-supporting planets being close enough to a star to be in the liquid water range. Who knows, maybe every normal star forms a narrow variant of our system of planets? That would drastically increase the chance for life friendly planets.

I know, most star systems are binaries. But Jupiter is less than 10% mass away from being a star. Jupiter?s gravity doesn?t cause us serious problems, and if it were a luminous star, I don?t think that would cause significant problems either as it wouldn?t be very bright. It is almost a brown dwarf now with its infrared radiation.

The research on chemical compounds easily formed in space is also moving in the direction of lowering the threshold for life on other planets. Of course the proof you seek would be when that Vulcan star ship drops by to pay us a visit. But I don?t think we have to wait. We can and will figure this out in our lifetimes as a statistical probability and then take on the next logical challenge.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/11/05 06:21 AM

"But from a purely scientific perspective I can give you a huge amount of evidence that would support the proposition that sentient life exists nowhere else."

That would be interesting. Most people are a lot better at talking about science and logic than they are about practicing it.
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 12:09 AM

To DA Morgan,

I fail to understand your response.

Quote:
How can one study Job and Isaiah? There is nothing to study.
It would appear you are simply against making a study because of the origin of these texts. The Hebrew scholarly evidence of Job and Isaiah is overwhelming not to mention the historic and geological evidence?

Quote:
The text has no author.
Would you like to take this statement to a ?Royal Commission? and see if your argument stacks up against the scrutiny of the Jewish Hebrew language, non-Jewish scholars, and historic scholars to boot?

Quote:
The text has been mistranslated numerous times.
Mistranslated you say. Then you do agree there is original texts somewhere, which of course must have an author.

However, the only reason to mistranslate scripture is to change time spans known as dispensations. Bearing this in mind there is absolutely no need to mistranslate the Old Testament. Modern mistranslations by religious groups are only concerned about prophecy relating to the deity of Christ not the historic writings of the Bible.

You can begin to see my point that a reply to my post would be futile without a study of these books.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 02:48 AM

Sparky: I spent years of my life doing calculus before personal computers and calculators. I have more than a passing familiarity with statistical analysis. That does't change the fact that there is only a single point, out of a infinite number of possible points on the graph supporting the proposition that life exists anywhere else in the universe. That is only one point more than on my graph in which I prove that god is an invisible purple rhinoceros.

I appreciate you pointing out all of the "hopeful" signs. Being deaf dumb and blind I'd never noticed them before. Still that proves nothing about any place else in the entire universe.

oneplanet:
How can you study something that does not exist? You claim to have a copy of Job and Isaiah? Where?
In your bible? I don't think so. The original was not written in English. Oh you have the Latin Volgate. So sorry it wasn't written in Latin either. Perhaps the Greek or Hebrew? Still a total fraud as it is also not the original.

But just for fun take that English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew copies and get scholars to agree on a single translation of them all? Can't be done. You can not even get a rabbi and a priest to agree on the translation of ten simple declarative sentences we call the Ten Commandments. So you have nothing to study. Most certainly not the original text with its original meaning.

So tell me oneplanet ... what is the value in studying the mistranslation of a text? What conclusions can you draw from it?
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 03:46 AM

DA Morgan:
You did not read one word of my post. What has English or the Latin to do with the Hebrew Scriptures? I do not believe you know a single Hebrew scholar, not one. You write from a scant knowledge of ecumenical religious claptrap.

The Ten Commandments, which you will find are 613 commandments, have never been a subject of mistranslation. The priests you refer to are religious people only interested in man's word about God. The rabbi generation you speak about removed chapter 53 of Isaiah. Why do you think that was?

The original texts are in existence! And no my source and learning does not come from the KJV version. The Hebrew texts I speak about are protected by an ingenious mathematical formula, which can be scientifically tested by anyone and has been by many scientists. Other famous literally pieces including the Apocrypha do not pass the number protection. Why do think that is?

But whatever I say as a lead up to some very conclusive evidence of science in the Bible you will continue to reply with uneducated rejections and an obvious limited knowledge on the subject.

Maybe I should start up a post with a more precise statement!
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 04:08 AM

"Make a study of Job and Isaiah using the original texts and then come back and say that God is not the author of science. If you have not or do not intend to make this study then don't reply to this post. It would be both futile and unscientific."
That last sentence is perhaps the most stupid statement I've read so far in this forum.
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 04:28 AM

It is intended to invoke response, which it has achieved.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 04:39 AM

Also, I seriously doubt that we have "original" text of either Isaiah or Job.
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 05:02 AM

Hmmm, lets hope not for your sake.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 05:05 AM

I'm guessing Isaiah was written maybe 300 to 1K years BC. (It's been a long time since I had any interest in the subject.) You're saying you think we have ORIGINAL text - text that was written by the authors themselves and not just stuff that was copied from scribe to scribe?

Or are you saying we have stuff that was copied and recopied and re-recopied, but which we believe is pretty close or identical to the original?
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 05:46 AM

Written 760 BC in times of declension and apostasy in Israel.

Quote:
You're saying you think we have ORIGINAL text - text that was written by the authors themselves and not just stuff that was copied from scribe to scribe?
The original texts naturally could be copied from scribe to scribe and translated incorrectly. But do you think the author of the Bible, Elohim (God the Creator) would allow His Word to be mistranslated? Of course not.

Humour me for this next sentence. If God can create the complexity of life such as the Wombat or Bombardier beetle, then keeping His Word in tact would be a simple task.

The scribes He selected to write down His Word did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit not under the hands of infallible man. The skeptic, who we all are at some point, can test the accuracy of scripture firstly through linking all 66 books together, which is quite a study.

Or apply the numerical division and multiplication of the numbers 777 and 888 to the Hebrew and Greek texts. The original Greek is the Textus Receptus.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 08:29 AM

Hi Mung,

I happen to be an atheist. To answer your question, one must ask you what you mean by God. Do you mean an all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious being who created the universe? Or do you mean some unconscious force that somehow animates the universe? After having read the comments to you, it strikes me that part of the problem is a lack of clarity as to what you mean by "God."
Posted by: Sparky

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 11:37 AM

I have read the book in several English versions and a few German versions. There are differences in translations, but God killed those who mistranslated it with the plauge of old age.

One simple error was the account of Paul's vision. In one case those with him saw a light and didn't hear anything, in the other, they heard a voice but didn't see anything. Probably an editing error.

I don't think God interferes that much with life, the rules of the universe are set. We use science and wisdom to discover what those rules are. The Bible contains a lot of wisdom, but not much on science. And, heaven help us, some books are much better than others in the wisdom category. As you recall, Yesua was quoted as saying: "you have heard it in the past an eye for an eye, but I say unto you" (proceeds to teach forgiveness and love) So he was going against Moses? law of retribution.

The bible will always remain an important part of humanity. But it is not a mystical book with every line having hidden meaning, and especially not in the English version where young woman is translated as virgin because the council of Nicene elevated her to "The mother of God". And then there is the brother of Yesua is only his cousin because that would cause doctrine problems for Mary to have more than one child. (That one has been corrected in many English versions now "James the brother of Jesus".)
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 04:47 PM

"The original texts naturally could be copied from scribe to scribe and translated incorrectly. But do you think the author of the Bible, Elohim (God the Creator) would allow His Word to be mistranslated? Of course not. "

There are a lot of characteristics and actions that I would never attribute to a real deity - and the god of the judeo-christian tradition exemplifies most of those characteristics and most performs most of those actions that I would not think possible in a god. So I'm not sure what that questions means.

Numerology is not science. That certain numbers and patterns show up in the ancient texts isn't remotely evidence that the words in the texts are true.
Posted by: jjw

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 07:34 PM

DA Morgan replies to jjw004

I made a brief comment on this question to the effect that science and religion had a basic hypothetical disagreement. Mr. morgan says no?

jjw004 said:
"We tend to overlook the basics between religion and science. Proof that either thought process is superior or factual can not be found."

Morgan replied:
Absolute nonsense. Here's a simple test.

Take one Jew, one Christian (of any denomination), one Sunni Moslem, one Shiite moslem, one Buddhist, and one animist and put them into a room.

Test 1: Ask them to watch water freeze. See if they can agree on a single set of facts to describe what happened.

Test 2: Ask them to read each other's religious scriptures and to agree on a single set of facts to describe the origin of the universe.

Case closed.

You understanding of science ... "tells us to beleive that MATTER always was and always will be" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science since, at least, the 1800s.

What on earth is Mr. Morgan saying other than that he does not understand the importance of the very basic difference between the origins of science and religion. The very concept of the creation of things by science view is that MATTER was always here otherwise the Big Bang came from nothing? Religion claims that God created MATTER and all else. Science creates a universe without the intervention of any God.

Educated people do not rush to trash the comments of others. You appear to think that freezing water is not consistent with the existence of God. Merely being party to a religious concept does not equate to stupidity any more than having "scientific concepts" is a sign of smarts. Lighten up.
jjw004
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 08:30 PM

This is my last post on this forum. I have a lot to offer about Evolution, Creation and the Bible that would open many mainstream thinker?s eyes but I can see that this is not a receptive forum broaching on a hate site, by a few, towards anything remotely biblical.

I would like to say to those of you who do look into the Word of God that you must do so bearing in mind the seven dispensations of time and the eight covenants of God. If this is not done then you will only gain a secular and humanistic view of the Bible, which is what has happened on this forum. If so you will misinterpret, see ambiguity all because of the lack of understanding the dispensational truths.

Immediately, people jump onto the religious wheel and automatically assume that the Catholic System is somehow Christian. You have to be kidding. Religion makes a worse mess of the scriptures than atheists do. The fact is no religion leads to salvation and all are abhorred by the One True God of the Bible. You don?t have to read too deeply to see that.

On a closing note, I always thought that science was the observation of things happening. I fail to see how anyone can claim millions of years of evolution especially as no one was there to witness it? But God was there in the beginning! Even Charles Darwin said that his entire evolutionary mold rests on a transitional fossil record that does not exist.

Cheers folks there are other forums and people who are interested. No one asked one question here about science embedded into scripture. What a terrible blight to withstand so much pride and bear hostile towards the very One who breathes live into you without a fair hearing.

Regards - Rod
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 09:46 PM

oneplanet:
Criticism is not hate. If you say something provocative, you cannot be surprised when those whom you have provoked respond vigorously.

Science is more than just "the observation of things happening." It's not a wonder that you are an anti-darwinian. Your comments about the fossil record are based on rumors and false reasoning that creationists float around amongst themselves as if they mattered.

Contrary to the persecution complex of creationists, they aren't criticized for "disagreeing with" or for "questioning" evolution. They are criticized because they make unequivocal assertions about the subject without having done the slightest bit of real homework. Reading bible tracts is not "doing your homework." Neither is cut-n-pasting blather from answersingenesis.com.

There are other people who aren't willing to do any real homework on the subject, people who are mentally lazy and won't be bothered to actually try to critically evaluate the claims you make to them. Mentally lazy people have a luxury not shared by the people who do their homework - to the mentally lazy person even the most idiotic notion can sound like genius.

Just one sample specific note:
"I fail to see how anyone can claim millions of years of evolution especially as no one was there to witness it?"
Here is a critical flaw in your understanding of what science is - one that shows you have gotten your "understanding" of science not from competent science teachers or from practicing science or reading about it, but from "researching" creationist fake-science sites. This is EXACTLY analogous to saying that photons do not exist because no one has ever seen one. We don't have to SEE a thing to be quite certain of its existence. Yours is the comic-book understanding of science promulgated by answersingenesis, among others, who depend on the fact that you will be too lazy to figure this out yourself. And they were apprently right.

It's not that you aren't smart. It's not that you are not capable of learning. It's that whatever intelligence you may have acquired by nature or by god is being wasted by a conscience effort to remain ignorant.
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/12/05 10:53 PM

TheFallibleFriend:
Okay, my second last post. Your response could equally apply to yourself. With respect, mate, a vague reply with pompous overtones. Do you truly think creation scientists have not done their home work or tramped all over the planet the same as other scientists? That comment surprises me from you. Have you spoken with these people?

And what is all this about bible tracts and answersingenesis? Perhaps 10% of what I know has come from this group the rest has come from the field and independent creation/evolutionary scientists. But it is true that the answers are indeed in Genesis.

You say my efforts have been wasted by a conscience effort to remain ignorant. Odd! That is what God says about the end times, most are willingly ignorant of His Word.

Rod
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 01:15 AM

" vague reply with pompous overtones"
Part of it was general and part of it was VERY specific; i.e. the comparison of our knowledge of evolution to our knowledge of photons. Yes, I admit my tone was pompous. It was intended to express irritation, but yes, it was probably pompous as well.

" Do you truly think creation scientists have not done their home work "
Yes. I do. Trampling over the planet does not equate to doing one's homework. I have spoken with numerous creationists over the years. More importantly, I have read probably more creationist literature than I have evolution science. So, yea, I think I get the gist of where they're coming from.

I was using ansersingenesis as an example. There is a plethora of anti-darwinian sites on the web and most of them are feeding from the same sources - ICR, papers by Morris, Gish, Behe, Wells, Dembski, and other pseudo-scientists. It's all the same copiously refuted nonsense that they've always put forth. They put on the site messages for guys like you: "Now you will be reviled and called an idiot and among other things, but here's the FACTS you can present to them." Knowing full well that none of the true believers will check too closely.

The answers are not "in genesis" or any other religious reference manual. The answers are in the library. Use it.
Posted by: oneplanet

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 02:26 AM

TheFallibleFriend:
You are honest in your writing but there?s no point in going on is there? I do respect your comments and I agree with much of what you have said. I am sure if we were ever to talk face to face we would get on very well despite the opposite sides of the fence.

The scientists you have quoted I have not read any of their works so I can?t comment. But your reference to Genesis as being a religious manual isn?t really a proper analogy. What does religion have to do with the Word of God? God is the essence of life and has nothing to do with man?s religious views of the Bible. Believers in the Bible never talk about religion being the domain of atheists and religious people.

I was once a staunch evolutionist causing no end of trouble with local creationists and I admit I have not entirely changed to believing in creation from scientific evidence. Though I do find it impossible to believe any animal could have evolved especially the bombardier beetle, the Australian blowfly, the human eye, the list is endless.

But my real change of belief came from the incredible insight the scriptures show about the differences between man and beast. This extended into why God says we are created in His image.

Where atheists and religious people go wrong with the validity of the Bible is not understanding the how it came into existence.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Then in 2 Peter 9:20-21 it plainly states: "No prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Like it or not we all have a God consciousness shown in our distinct difference to the Animal Kingdom. Think about it have you ever seen an animal build an alter to God.

So, FallibleFriend, lets part with our own beliefs and I wish you the best wherever you live.

Cheers - Rod
Posted by: John Warren

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 07:22 AM

hmm

Faith or Theory

which is a greater test of ones Belief's
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 08:32 AM

God transcends any definition given by any religion...It is simply everything.
There is nothing beyond him. There is nothing seperate from him.Most of us (except few) are like Monkeys who eat their fruit without having any idea of where we are dropping the seeds and for what purpose.
Those who know this grand ecosystem often move up in life.
Discussing God based upon a particular religion has its own limitation based on the religion's ability to express the extent of harmonious divinity which often gets defined as moral correctness.
Devil is not at all necessary at a certain religious plane of understanding...
Religions evolve ... so should we wihout negating what was achieved.
The unified source has no guilt about his creation.(In a science forum this can be considered blasphemous.)
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 12:27 PM

I get along with most people. I respect most people, because I appreciate people for whatever virtues they have.

I do not believe that people decide what they believe. They only decide what to profess - what they believe is determined by what makes sense TO THEM. What makes sense to them is determined by their upbringing, their education and studying and thinking.

I don't have any desire to change your mind. I only point out things that I think are wrong. I forgot which philosopher said it, "To free a man of error is to give not to take away: Knowledge that a thing is false is a truth."

I can appreciate that you believe there are some things that could not possibly have evolved. But this opinion is based on 1) faulty information and 2) faulty reasoning.

The case of the bombadier beetle, for example, is widely known to have been based on a mistranslation of the original paper. More generally though, this belief - that something could not possibly have evolved - is based on prejudice and perhaps a misunderstanding of the power of chance.

Some years ago, David Vogel had an article in IEEE spectrum in which he outlined the four steps to an evolutionary algorithm. For fun, I coded this up in VB (or maybe it was java ... I forget ... anyway) and set it out to solve the TSP. I was really wasn't expecting a success. I was quite amazed by the results. An interesting thing, though, the solutions it found (and it converged much quicker than I expected) were ALWAYS much better than what I think a human could have achieved unaided by a computer; HOWEVER, no matter how good the computer got (and I ran it several hundred times) I could always take one look at it and find several ways to improve it immediately. The best solutions were not human generated or computer generated - but hybrid.

But it got me thinking about this whole thing of what it means to be random. I don't think it's a proof of evolution and I don't expect it to convince you of anything. But it's convinced me - not of the fact of evolution which I already accepted - but of the possiblities of power of evoluton.

BTW, I attended a conference once and met a world expert on genetic algs and evolutionary progs and asked him about my results. He hinted that it was because I followed the exact algorithm Vogel outlined. I killed off all the least optimal cases. But evolution overall does better when there you allow some of the nonoptimal entities to breed. Here is the perfect demonstration of why diversity is important. It's not proof. It's not even evidence, really. It's just something that makes me understand that "randomness" isn't what I thought it was - and THAT is one of the great things, it seems, that sticks in most peoples' craws.

I don't expect you to change your mind. And I'm sure we would be friendly adversaries were we to sit across a coffee table.

I could meet you and after a short while come to understand and appreciate your virtues - the things you are good at, the things you understand and believe in. And I could respect and love you for these virtues - and believe to my core that you are a smart and good person. But I can predict already that your knowledge of evolution isn't among those virtues.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 12:54 PM

BTW, I used to be a Baptist and a creationist.

In middle school I frequently argued with proclaimed atheists.

By end of HS, I was pretty much confused by the issue and had no firm opinion on the subject, believing as many creatonists assert that evolution and creationism were both equal theories.

Then I got hung up on an issue - thermodynamics - that seemed to refute evolution. But when I looked into it, I discovered that not only was it not an issue, but that the creationists had grossly misrepresented the subject. I was furious at the deceit and resolved to look into other things. The entire case of creationism is not based on evidence for it, on disproofs of evolution. In case after case I examined on the subject, I discovered that they had misrepresented things - often in very sneaky ways.

I have come over the years to see them as divided into two groups: the intelligentsia and the common creationist. The "lay" creationist is just like I was at one time - deluded into thinking he understood what he did not. They are honest, but mistaken. And don't know enough to figure out they're mistaken. The creationist intelligentsia, however, is really, imo, a bunch of liars.

Many of my fellow evolutionists think I'm being melodramatic - they think these guys are just incompetent. I agree that most of them are speaking beyond their areas of expertise. But I'm convinced they have made a conscious and calculated attempt to deceive people who trust them.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 12:57 PM

Evolution is non-linear.
Evolution does not always follow problem-solution approach.
Sometimes it is just a result of wishful thinking or a weird dream.
Falling apple is not a problem for most of us.. but to some it is a big problem.

pls send me your steps in evolutionary biology(or its simulation).
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 01:27 PM

AND WHAT EVOLVES FIRST IS NOT PHYSICALITY OF EXISTENCE BUT THE IDEA OR THOUGHT(As understood by life which is not necessarily(or only) digital) .... what evolves is understanding of self and surroundings...Thanks Fallible for your kind remarks.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/13/05 01:55 PM

"pls send me your steps in evolutionary biology(or its simulation)"

I'm not sure if you're talking to me. I actually was looking to see if I still had the code somewhere. I'm unable to find it so far. But the algorithm is pretty simple - as I said it was outlined in an article by David Fogel in IEEE Spectrum.

"What is evolutionary computation?"
Fogel, D.B.; Spectrum, IEEE
Volume 37, Issue 2, Feb. 2000 Page(s):26, 28-32

The general algorithm he gives is:
Initialize the population
Create offspring through random variation
Evaluate the Fitness of each candidate solution
Apply Selection

I'd offer to write the program again and send it to you, but I'm kinda busy at the moment. It's surprisingly easy, though, if you'd like to give it a try. Take a look at the article - everything you need is in there.

(Again - I don't claim it's proof of anything. It's just an illustrative tool to help understand the possibilities of 'random' variations in populations acting under constraints.)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/14/05 04:01 AM

"Randomness" as understood by Computers is often without patterns of randomness!!
Random events have inbuilt patterns.
Naturally occuring random numbers are known to follow certain statiscal laws.
Excpect 5 consecutive heads when you do head/tails.If it is not there then the event is not random.
Width of a river is a random number but there is very small chance that the number will start with 9 and it is more likely that it will start with 1.
Fractality of landscape is again a result of random events but there is a definite pattern which can be expressed mathematically(with some error).

You can say that in order to obtain a certain pattern of intelligence(which removes chaos) one has to perform a perfect random experiment.

There are experiments which are not truly random and experiments can not claim to simulate any natural process. No observation is critical for such an experiment to take place otherwise the the result set gets distorted. Therefore any 'TRUE' simulation can only be conduted using Qunatum laws and quantum computers.
Another intersting non-linear event is related to the monster sea storms.Where the base nature of such event is probabilistic.
Wish you all the best.
Posted by: Edisonian

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/15/05 06:08 PM

God can only be proven by faith.
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/15/05 09:31 PM

Quote:
What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
God should come to Earth and should let an entire Galaxy at few billion lightyears away from Earth vanish before the eyes of scientists observing it with the most powerful telescopes.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/16/05 05:09 AM

God should come to Earth and cure all the people who suffer from CFIDS, ME and FM. Then I might believe.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/16/05 07:03 AM

No need to cure them. God should come to earth. Surrender to the World Court in the Hague. And stand trial for the crimes of genocide, murder, torture, rape, and destruction of property.

Let the louse prove its worth by defending itself.

If we were created in its image, as the text states, then it should have no fear in allow us to judge it.

Lets see what crimes we can lay clearly at its door.

1. Invention of AIDS, polio, childhood leukemia, malaria, syphilis, etc.
2. Designing women such that they often die in childbirth depriving innocent newborns of their mothers.
3. Killing every first born male in an entire country.
4. Drowning everyone on the planet with the sole exception of the members of a single family.
5. Adam and Eve had two sons and no daughters. Given that the rest of us are here there is no doubt that Eve had sexual relations with at least one of her sons.

No doubt others can add to this list of crimes against humanity. But if the hateful malicious little troll can adequately defend itself and justify the invention of the Smallpox then I will agree to its existence. Seems like a fair bargain.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/16/05 08:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Adam and Eve had two sons and no daughters.
Adam and Eve had three sons:

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:2
And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Genesis 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Cain, Abel, and Seth
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/16/05 10:11 PM

I stand corrected. The ho was probably sleeping with all of them.
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/17/05 03:52 AM

TheFallibleFiend, just for fun,

I affirm that if you told most people that you "saw a UFO" (not only literally meaning 'unidentified flying object' but also to be something, from your observation, to be 'otherworldly', they would scream, "nuts!". Point is, if you believed in what you saw (to be something not from this world or in the purview of our known technology), others would not necessarily believe your observation. 1. Yes, you "see something". 2. No one believes you. 3. Just because no one believes you does not necessarily mean that you did not "see something". 4. Uncle Al's test of faith.
Observing a UFO (again not a literal interpretation but a crystal clear sense that what you saw is in fact alien {created by intelligent life not of this world}) and conveying your observation to those who did not experience your observation requires reliance on their part. You can have pictures of UFOs or even video, and no matter how pertinacious your conviction most people will renege you. Why is this the case?
If DA "sees an invisible purple rhinoceros" and nobody else witnesses this event then does that mean that he did not see it or that it does not exist? I do not know.

A. Stancliff,
I lean toward your first consideration of what terms I define "God" in, "all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious being who created the universe". Further to clarify (or confuse) is that out of possibly an infinite number of universes, our known universe is designed by this "God".

Again I have no take either way.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Rusty Rockets

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/17/05 04:38 AM

I've been tipped off that Satan is living in the village of Behle. If you rearrange the letters of Cain, Abel and Seth you get "Satanic Behle "
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/17/05 05:19 AM

Mung:
If I claim to see an invisible purple rhinoceros that is nothing more than a statement from one person. If the entire audience for a football game also sees the invisible purple rhinoceros that is either mass hysteria or perhaps the rhinoceros isn't actually invisible.

Same thing goes here. If you see a UFO you saw something you can not explain. If you photograph the UFO you have a photograph of something you can not explain. If you ascribe that unidentified object to creation by sentient beings from another planet then it is your obligation to provide evidence that:
1. There are other sentient beings.
2. Those specific sentient beings had something to do with this specific object.
Absent that you are just engaging in wild speculation without substance or foundation.

Rusty: What happens when you do it in Aramaic? Or have you forgotten the language in which the names were first written and spoken was not the King's English. Rusty indeed.
Posted by: Rusty Rockets

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/17/05 07:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:


Rusty: What happens when you do it in Aramaic? Or have you forgotten the language in which the names were first written and spoken was not the King's English. Rusty indeed. [/QB]
Hehe...

I bring that point up myself when people start quoting English versions of the Bible.
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/17/05 02:15 PM

DA,
Thank you for your consideration. To quote you, "If I claim to see an invisible purple rhinoceros that is nothing more than a statement from one person." But why is it not more than just a statement from one person. There is a difference between "claiming to see an invisble purple rhinoceros and positing that you have "truly seen one". Your claim, although limited to one person, ought to have some weight for consideration by others. You have seen something that can not rationally be explained, but you have still seen/experienced it none-the-less. Regardless of whether or not anyone else believes you. I think I see your position that essentially if you make outlandish claims then in order for you to be taken seriously then you must provide clear evidence (whatever that means lol).
**************************************************
Further, to quote TheFallibleFiend, "UFOs and intelligent alien life - to the extent they are not mystical or supernatural phenomena - are susceptible to the scientific method, at least putatively.

UFOs exist. You see something in the sky. You don't know what it is, therefore it is a UFO."

Ok.

1. Let us refine the definition of UFO (object not from any [known] Earthbound technology) and refine that either you alone, or a large audience have experienced this event.
2. I do not know the general take of the scientific communities position regarding UFO's. But again I do sense that most people, scientists or not, would say, "nuts".
3. Take the "lights over Phoenix" in www.cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights Hotly debated as to whether or not the "lights" were from a massive UFO or eminated from flares dropped from government planes. This event was witnessed by tens of thousands of people and well documented via video and pictures.
4. A colleague of mine was driving in Phoenix, during the event, and was awestruck by "a colossal object hovering over the city with no sound coming from it". He relayed that cars by the dozens had pulled over onto the side of the road to watch this event.
5. This is an example, akin to DA's "football stadium audience".
6. Did thousands of people optically compute the same experience. Did each person have their own interpretation of what transpired?
7. Were the lights flares or a massive UFO?
8. How can the scientific method be applied to understand an event such as this when there are extremely differing perspectives on the same occurance?
9. I contend that if 1,000 different scientists applied the scientific method to understand the nature of this event, then there would probably be dozens (or more) arrays of equally sound scientific conclusions. How can this be? There is bountiful "evidence" and yet there will be vastly differing approaches (and resulting conclusions) as to how to tackle the issue scientifically.
10. Lets, for fun, further posit that the scientific method was applied by scientists (of varying backgrounds), and still the conclusions ranged from: government flares, mass hysteria, UFO.. even God, and finally inconclusive (not able to determine what the occurance actually was). How can this be? The facts are the same.
11. I do not think the method can be applied because this is extremely likely to be a non-reproducable event.
12. What I am wondering, I spoke with finchbeak about this earlier, is how do scientists (using the same raw data) differ vastly on conclusions resulting from using the same scientific method?
Sincerely,
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/17/05 04:23 PM

Mung:

Q1:
"refine the definition of UFO (object not from any [known] Earthbound technology"

And precisely which moron is the arbiter of "known."
The National Enquirer? The New York Times? The NSA? And lets cut this to ribbons while we are at it. How do you look at something miles away and determine the technology? It moved "funny"? Good test. 1 down 11 to go.

Q2:
"Do we consider UFO's nuts?"

No. We consider people that ascribe specific wholly fanciful/speculative/nonsensical sources to UFOs to be nuts. Did they see something? Possibly. Do they have a clue what is was? No! End of discussion. 2 down 10 to go.

Q3: "Phoenix Incident"
Something happened. Many people saw it. Not one of them knows what it was. Therefore it was from sentient beings in another solar system? That is nuts. I think the lights were created by invisible purple rhinos with flashlights. And with just as much basis in fact as any other speculator. 3 down 9 to go.

Q4 & Q5: "Friend's story"
Is there a point here? 5 down 7 to go.

Q6: "Many people say it"
Many people saw something. No problem with that. Any one of them ascribing a cause to it is a publicity seeker or a fool. 6 down. 6 to go.

Q7: "What was it?"
Don't know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. So there is no point. I don't know how the first DNA molecule was created? Should I therefore ascribe it to intentional manufacturing by aliens?
7 down 5 to go.

Q8: "How apply the scientific method"
You can't. There is nothing to apply it to. 8 down.

Q9: "1000 scients = 1000 conclusions"
Not if they are truly scientists. 1000 scients would come to the same conclusion. They would conclude that insuffient information existed to conclude anything. They would likely call for a review of radar data from military and civilian sites, collect photographic evidence, ask airplane pilots to confirm the siting, and try to correlate what they found with other reported sightings. But reach a conclusion? Hardly. 9 down 3 to go.

Q10: "Lets, for fun"
Lets not. Just a waste of time. 10 down 2 to go.

Q11: "Non reproducability"
The method can always be applied. The result will, of course, be that insufficient data points exist.
11 down 1 to go.

Q12: "Different conclusions"
Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations. Just like other members of the species. Done!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/19/05 06:24 AM

Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations.
REP: You are wrong.Statistical conclusions can be different depending upon the sample.
All the observed scientific truths have their own boundary conditions defined.

one important assumption we all take for granted is that something can be isolated from whole.
A butterfly doesnt create a hurricane.
Of late some theories have started realizing that this assumption is not true.

There is no point in mixing Science and religion.

Science beigns with question.
Religion begins with answer.

Science is needs to verified and tested by many.
Religion needs no verification excpet from your own self.

Science has no goal.
Religion has a goal.

Science wants to explain everthing.
Religion wants to explain why everything.

There are many more differences and would not like discuss them in detail.

Study and practice as many religions as possible and then raise questions on it.

As far as the question regarding the fact that why world is under so pain , the answer is simple....
Your limited religious understanding gives a false perception of reality.A deer gets scared of a tiger without relaizing the role it has to play in the universe.Emotions are right only to the extent of the understanding and feelings generated by the reality.
And as you realize(in terms of awareness) your role ,the understood 'objective' truth changes to a higher level of objectivity.
Understood? I am sure not.:-))

If and when Science will become unquestionable it will become religion.Quite literally with all its ambiguity.

One thing common in both is that they both can effect this world with equal might.
Posted by: Sparky

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/19/05 02:27 PM

Put yourself in the scientific mind of 100 years ago. An unknown clerk has just presented his first paper on the wave nature of light. Since the man did not come from an important school, and did not conduct his own experiments, as he had no lab, and no staff, his paper was not considered important for many years. This man revolutionized physics with nothing but his mind and his interpretation of the research of others.

Last night I was reading a rough draft concept to redo electromechanical theory. The author is knowledgeable, holds a PhD from some school called MIT, and is the head of a physics Department at a University so his ideas cannot simply be dismissed as amateurish. But he is plowing though all the math and implications of his new theory, and it may be many years before he publishes and decades past that before it has a chance of acceptance and or we find a way of using electricity that the new theory suggests that is different than the old theory.

That is the way of science. The science I see here is old and boring. Unless it is accepted fact, it cannot be right. Maybe it is the rebel in me that looks for new applications, new interpretations, looks for weaknesses in current theories, etc. Unless we open our minds more and have at least a slight distrust of current explanations, we will not make progress in science. As I have said before, some here remind me of fundamental Christians with their mindset against change.

You take religion, classify all religions as the same as your limited experience, drop out philosophy, and dismiss a large part of human experience as an impediment to your faith in science. That is not only wrong, that is not what they teach as the scientific method.

For something interesting: a magnetic field can be generated in two different ways, by the flow of electricity, and by electron spin. There seems to be no difference in these fields that can be detected. I.e. one cannot examine a magnetic field and say that it originated from the flow of electrons or from electron spin: they both produce the same effect. How can this explained in present electrical theory? Hint: electrical theory is relatively old and was developed before quantum mechanics.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/19/05 08:00 PM

It may have been his first paper on the wave nature of light, but it wasn't his first paper. He had already written on capillary action (1901) and several papers on thermodynamics (1902 - 1904).

In fact his paper on brownian motion "won him a PhD from the university of Zurich." (http://www.space.com/reference/brit/einstein/life.html)


Einstein was a recognized genius by the time he published his paper on the photoelectic effect.
One very weird thing about his SR paper, published a little later in the year, in Annalen der Physik is the sparcity of bibliography. There were *NO* references in his paper on SR. (At least not in the translations I've seen.) It's just right out of his head.

The site above refers to his alma mater as "the renowned Federal Polytechnic Academy in Zurich." (Of course, any goof can write an 'authoritative' looking website. Maybe this is an exaggeration. I don't know... but the site at least claims that the article is from britannica.com)


I'm not sure it's true that his paper was "not considered important for many years." It may not have been important to the general public, but I think many of the leading scientists had at leat some understanding of its significance. From the above site: "Public understanding of this new theory and acclaim for its creator were still many years off, but Einstein had won a place among Europe's most eminent physicists, who increasingly sought his counsel, as he did theirs."
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/20/05 01:02 AM

dvd: Grow up. You wrote:
"Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations."

You you truly such a paradox that you can connect to the internet and use a computer ... but still can't figure out that "differ in speculation" is meaningless ... and "differ in conclusions" nonsense.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/21/05 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrMung:
Consider: If you seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", what would you need as that proof. And if your proof is fulfilled then would you believe it anyway? I do not mean proof of religion. I mean proof of "God" in the sense of a SINGLE entity responsible for the creation of the known universe. I am not saying "God" exists one way or another. Just posed this to "people of 'science'" (of which I consider myself to be) to see how they think about it.
The "scientific proof of God's existence and power" will be proven, however, it will not convince everyone. There will be people who will claim that God's scientific proof is nothing more than a coincidence.

As for me, I do not seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", I need as that proof, nothing. But what about you MrMung? You have not said in this thread. What would you need as that proof?
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/21/05 11:08 PM

Garry,

I most agree with what Nominal posted, "For me to consider God as factual I would have to run "God-facts" through the scientific method. Simply, if there are no God-facts which I can accumulate then there is no debate to be had.
If I am strolling down a dusty road and in my purview a burning bush speaks to me: a) I've had a psychotic snap, or any other inumerable explainations....
Further, perhaps God is not meant to be taken as fact..but to only exist through faith."

Not entirely sure what would constitute a "God-fact", moreover I do not think science can prove God's existence, rather I believe God can be disproven much more readily. But science said the world was flat at some point and that the Earth was the center of the solar system (and universe?). Then science corrected and shifted itself adopting a paradigm where the sun is at the center of the solar system. Science adjusts and evolves, does God? Or is God a constant with one set of messages (e.g. the bible) that does not change and adapt to modern times. A physics book written 100 years from now WILL paint a drastically different picture of our universe; whereas the bible will have the same words, yes? A television evangelist will tithe your money, in the name of God. Was it foolish to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Of course not, because our eyes see the sun traverse across the sky. But again it was science and not God which corrected our observations. Is it foolish to fork over your hard earned cash to an evangelist (acting sincerely and purely [wink wink] on God's behalf)? I think so yes. But then ask the people who do fork it over and they say a resounding, "NO". Why do some have ardent faith in God while others do not, while still others are undecided? Such a vast array of perceptions (even hostility) regarding the belief of God.
Perception. We, as individuals, are exposed to unique life-learning experiences and as a result what we are exposed to (often early in life) can dictate the rest of our destiny. I grew up in a catholic household where my parents were patently irish-catholic, church every Sunday etc.. I never enjoyed it and found it a complete waste of time and energy. But that is my unique experience. After my parents ceased forcing me to attend mass I immediately halted my presence at Sunday mass. I did not "get it". Others did "get it" and found church and religion and God most satisfying, and yet I took a different path, even though I was exposed to the same information (as my young peers). To those who believe in "God" just "get it", they "understand". Maybe they can not explain why they "get it", but they do none-the-less. Maybe they are more perceptive to something that I am not; maybe they have more skill at understanding the benefits of religion than I do. Science, as it is, is my religion. Though, at the same time, I do enjoy Christmas and the "spirit" of the season.

One thing that strikes a seeming paradox is that physics seeks a "theory of everything" and, theologically predestination (the doctrine that God has foreordained all things) is its religious counterpart.

"In fact, many physicists take the position that physics is the only fundamental science. Their argument runs as follows: all sciences--biology, chemistry, geology, etc.--are concerned with matter; all matter is composed of atoms; physics describes the dynamics and internal configurations of atoms. Extension of this physico-centric view can result in profound philosophical consequences. For example, if one accepts that the human brain controls all human behavior, and if one accepts that the brain is composed entirely of atoms whose behavior is completely described by laws of physics, then one may reasonably question whether a person has the free will to control his behavior. Nevertheless it is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions."

"In physics a theory of everything (TOE) is a theory that unifies the four interactions of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. There has been progress toward a TOE in unifying electromagentism and the weak nuclear force in an electroweak unified field theory and in unifying all of the forces except for gravity (which in the present theory of gravity general relativity is not a force) in grand unified theory. One missing piece in a theory of everything involves combining quantum mechanics and general relativity into a theory of quantum gravity."

Fine.

So if a "universal law" that explains the universe in an equation exists...then there is no "free will" because everything is pre-determined in a mathematical formula?

"It is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions".

Why not? Is there no spontaneity in human behavior because of the existence of a fundamental universal equation? Does not physics and philosophy intersect??

Most people do not question what is force-fed to them in school or question the veracity of what they digest through the media. Critical thinking. I always asked, "why" or "why not?" This is not to say that people who believe in God or religion are misguided. Like I said, "I just don't get it".

Perhaps unknown future sciences can better address this question as presently humanity is ill-equipped and immature. We need a deeper acumen of the workings of the macro and micro physical (physics) universe(s) before we can answer questions of scientifically proving God. Whether or not one believes in God is irrelevent; as one is expected to abide by the social contract. If one wants to live in society one must play by the rules, so to say.

Good and evil occur independent of God's existence. Many things are relative, using the terms "good" and "evil" is a spectacular instance of this. Who defines that which is "good" or "evil"? God? No. Humanity defines these words, whether literally (taken from the American Heritage Dictionary), or through action (aiding the tsunami victims last December), or through inaction (not addressing social equality, in the United States until the 1960s).

My point is that whether or not God exists or whether or not people believe in a God (or higher spiritual power), it is the responsibility of humanity to BE GOD. And hopefully a, wise, fair and benevolent humanity/God at that.

I mentioned in some other forum post that technology has far outpaced our "social maturity". Another post asks if science has failed humanity? Where are the flying cars we were promised? To paraphrase (either DA or Uncle Al I do not recall which) "science flies airplanes and God demands you upon your knees" (or something to this effect).

So again, perhaps God is meant to be taken as fact through faith and faith alone.
Sincerely,
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/22/05 03:40 AM

Gary you wrote:
" "scientific proof of God's existence and power" will be proven, however, it will not convince everyone."

Please stop using drugs. Lets examine science facts. The temperature at which water melts is zero degrees Celsius. Is there disagreement? The specific gravity of gold? The size of Planck's constant? The distance to the moon? The number of protons in an iron nucleus?

Science fact is science fact. Waffling about your invisible purple rhinoceros is because you truly in your heart don't believe it either. Make no excuses for the mythological destroyer of worlds. That creature is a mythical genocidal maniac ... not a god.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/22/05 04:15 PM

The best thing about the Creator is this: It does not matter to the Maker whether anyone considers God as factual. "The Universal Ruler", according to Sir Isaac Newton (from Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Book III: The System of the World), "is Lord God", and "God is the same God, always and everywhere."

What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/23/05 04:13 AM

God is the same God, always and everywhere.
Believe in it if you believe in the true spirit of religion.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/23/05 04:47 AM

dvk trying to prove he/she has never taken a class in statistics wrote:

"Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations.
REP: You are wrong.Statistical conclusions can be different depending upon the sample.
All the observed scientific truths have their own boundary conditions defined."

Actually I am not. Try something new different. Try an education.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/23/05 06:04 AM

You are wrong.Statistical conclusions can be different depending upon the sample.
REP: I said can be.
What is wrong with that. They differ over a period of time.In case of statistics the time difference is sometimes less than a year.

Solve the following statistically:
1.Smoking is Injurious to health.
2.On 13th there are more accidents.
3.If you wear Red your chances of winning increases.
4.Not enough exposure to Real World reduces the capability of immune system.
5.Those who drink Wine are healthier than non drinkers.
6.Those who are Black are less likely to get a job and are therefore less intelligent(given the equal availability of opportunity).
7.Those who shave daily are less like to get a heart attack.
The list goes on and on...
And then there are brilliant exceptions.
Exceptions which make the Statistic look like a stupid logical formulation of thought for practical use for strong action.
The statistical truths are known to vary over sample space and time.
The conclusions are not like the Physical Truths.


Every year the truth changes depending upon the sample.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/23/05 03:04 PM

Gary wrote:
"What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?"

Actually rather simple to answer. I would need to see evidence of something that violated the laws of physics. Not a magic show. Not smoke and mirrors. Something that truly violated the laws of physics.
Something as simple as causing polyethylene to melt into a puddle of liquid while sitting on a metal plate cooled with liquid nitrogen.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/23/05 03:09 PM

dvk wrote:
"Every year the truth changes depending upon the sample."

Please please tell me you are not qualified to vote.

Your statement above is pure nonsense. When conditions change results change. Different football game with different teams often leads to different scores and a different number of fans in the bleachers. That is not a science experiment ... that is an observation.

A different truth would be if you watched a video tape of the same football game 10 times and even one of those times the score was different.

Truthfully ... are you as incapable of critical thinking as you advertise here at SAGG? As someone that teaches at a university I have known how bad the primary school education system has become. But you seem to be a worst case scenario.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/23/05 05:54 PM

"Every year the truth changes depending upon the sample."

I'm not sure about "every year," but we occasionally update our "perception" of truth. I don't think most philosophers of science would say that scientific results were Truth. This is pretty much the domain of religion.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 09/24/05 04:37 AM

"Every year the truth changes depending upon the sample."
You guys really got me here..:-))
I also think I was too harsh on Stats.
You see the observation over limited period and limited space has its own limitations and therefore one should very careful while generalizing Scienctific Truths.Something like
"Scientists don't differ in their conclusions."
can easily be replaced by
"Scientists can differ in their conclusions over a period of time."

Things can change especially if it is statistical in nature.
Morgan was too critical of me for nothing.
He wants answer to this:
"Something that truly violated the laws of physics."
Everything is magical till you understand it.
For example Physics has really started learning some new facts which some religion claimed to have known for thousands of years.
How did they come to know?
Its a magic till you dont get into their domain and find that it is no magic at all!!

"Different football game with different teams often leads to different scores and a different number of fans in the bleachers. That is not a science experiment ... that is an observation."

That was pure nonsense. The red color observation was made scietifically and it can be taken as an actionable statistical information for improving the chances.But not everyone believes in this observation otherwise we will have red army everywhere.:-))
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 10/27/05 03:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
God should come to Earth and should let an entire Galaxy at few billion lightyears away from Earth vanish before the eyes of scientists observing it with the most powerful telescopes.
Quote:
Originally posted by oneplanet:
Folks, if you don't believe in a God of miracles there is no chance you will believe the God of the Bible, who you may find to be the author of science and not the author of religion. Make a study of Job and Isaiah using the original texts and then come back and say that God is not the author of science.
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Actually rather simple to answer. I would need to see evidence of something that violated the laws of physics. Not a magic show. Not smoke and mirrors. Something that truly violated the laws of physics. Something as simple as causing polyethylene to melt into a puddle of liquid while sitting on a metal plate cooled with liquid nitrogen.
I personally like the Count Iblis II idea, a modified slighty Job, with Isaiah's oneplanet in mind. But not simply an entire Galaxy at few billion lightyears away from this Earth. Why that's only a few Stars for oneplanet, and much too distant for most to see. Besides, this site is Science a Go-Go, not Google a Google-Group, and there are many Stars everywhere, including the Sun, close by. I considered DA Morgan's idea, causing polyethylene to melt into a puddle of liquid while sitting on a metal plate cooled with liquid nitrogen. However, although simple to do, and fascinating for US scientists, it would be considered a pocket change vaudeville act to the sightful public at large. There are still many who doubt US astronauts ever went to Earth's moon, because they could not witness it tangibly with their own eyes. So when the Planning and Regulatory Panel is ready to begin, I the Spirit of truth (science), God the Holy Ghostwriter, will vanish before the eyes of scientists the Galaxies everywhere. Fear not. All a the Sun and the Stars will reappear after times and an half (Earth day and a half). Do not worry. This is just another day at the office, for me. Here then, is the red tape that is currently holding up my recharging of this Universe's (and this Earth's) magnetic field. On 26th July 2005 the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council refused English Heritage's application for excavation and removal of A-344 road beside Heelstone:

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5437

English Heritage's application, approved by the Northern Area Committee of Salisbury District Council at its meeting of 19th July 2005, was refused by the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council on 26th July 2005, because it did not provide for excavating and removing God the Holy Ghostwriter's Heelstone artifacts:

http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke

English Heritage was very surprised, and disappointed, by Salisbury District Council's decision, but they now know the grounds for refusal are ones which can easily be resolved when English Heritage submits the amended scheme providing for the excavation and removal of God the Holy Ghostwriter's Heelstone artifacts and A-344 road.

http://www.salisbury.gov.uk/council/contact

Count Iblis II idea, a modified slighty Job, with Isaiah's oneplanet in mind, the demonstration of vanishing galaxies before the eyes of scientists observing them (with telescopes), is waiting on Mike, of the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council, to respond to my Yom Kippur 13th October 2005 "Good Job!" letter emailed.

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:

I like rock.

And classical.

And jazz.

And ....
roll.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 10/27/05 03:44 AM

Ask me questions from any religion and I will try to explain ...
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 10/27/05 04:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
Ask me questions from any religion and I will try to explain ...
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion

"religion is for pikers."

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pikers

r2e2 over and out,

God the Holy Ghostwriter

soft core

1) A-A' (1979) C91 quadrant bearing; N 73 E
2) B-B' (1953) C36 quadrant bearing; S 67 E
3) C-C' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; S 57 E
4) D-D' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; South
5) E-E' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; S 50 E
6) F-F' (1923) C6 quadrant bearings; S 2 W - S 22 E
7) G-G' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; S 50 E
8) H-H' (1956) C51 quadrant bearing; S 63 E
9) I-I' (1979) C91 quadrant bearings; S 71 E - S 34 E - S 71 E / S 71 E

hard core

1) brass altar (5c-5c-3c)
2) gold ark (2.5c-1.5c-1.5c)
3) gold table (2c-1c-1.5c)
4) gold altar (1c-1c-2c)
5) gold candlestick
6) gold breastplate
7) gold ephod
8) gold censer
9) brass laver
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 10/27/05 04:33 AM

It should be Philosophical?
And not hard core literature.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 10/27/05 05:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
It should be Philosophical?
And not hard core literature.
Will You Wear Your Costume to Work?

By Mike Erwin, Senior Ghoul Expert

If you think you're job is scary on just an ordinary day, you ain't seen nothing yet. Although you might say you work with a bunch of clowns or your boss is a beast, this Halloween it might literally be true. Almost one-third of workers plan to or are considering dressing up for Halloween at work this year, according to Careerbuilder.com's "Halloween at the Office" 2005 survey. Those in need of last-minute costume ideas for trick-or-treating through the cubicles can throw together the following office-themed get-ups in a matter of minutes:

Get Philosophical!


#7, EH?
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/02/05 08:26 PM

If we ever develop time travel the first task we should perform should be to go back in time to after Jesus had "finished" with things in Jerusalem... and bring him "here" so that he could see the state of affairs in the world today and see what those who were supposed to be "stewards" of his ideas have done. I think you would find a little more anger exercised by him than he showed to the Money Changers in the Temple... what do you think?

Sincerely,
Posted by: soilguy

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/02/05 10:01 PM

I'd know it when I see it!

Hmm. I guess god is kinda like porn.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mung:
If we ever develop time travel the first task we should perform should be to go back in time to after Jesus had "finished" with things in Jerusalem... and bring him "here" so that he could see the state of affairs in the world today and see what those who were supposed to be "stewards" of his ideas have done. I think you would find a little more anger exercised by him than he showed to the Money Changers in the Temple.
Stonehenge Temple plans Passed to Steering Group

Halloween Red Tape Aloha

31st October 2005

The Formation of a Cross-government Steering Group to take forward the Review of the Options to Ease congestion on the A303 and Improve the Setting around Stonehenge was announced today by Transport Minister, Dr Stephen Ladyman.

The Review will be taken forward by a Steering Group consisting of representatives from: the Department for Transport; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Highways Agency; the Government Office for the South West; and, statutory advisers, English Heritage and Natural England. The Department for Transport announced the review in July 2005 following an increase in scheme costs of the proposed Stonehenge tunnel.

Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State for Transport, said:

"Everyone with an Interest in this important issue will have the opportunity
to contribute to the Review Process as a Full Public Consultation will begin
in January 2006."

Halloween Red Tape Aloha

Rip, Rock, and Roll
(the three r's)

Garry Denke, Geologist
Cross Steering Group Reporter
http://www.garrydenke.com
http://www.denocoinc.com
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
I'd know it when I see it!
Ladyman is a guy, soilguy.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 04:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrMung:
Consider: If y cool ou seek "scientific proof of God's existen :p ce and power", what would you need as that proof. And if your proof is fulfilled then would you believe it anyway?. I do not mean proof of religion. I me eek an proof of "God" in the sense of confused a SINGLE entity responsible for the creation of the known un smile iverse. I am not sa laugh ying "God" exists one way or another. Just posed this to "people of 'science'" (of which I consider myself to be) to see how they think about it.

wat? lol i go 2 church every sunday and da guy said god is real and my mom says he is rite lol. eek
wat? D:\Files\Important\kool.jpg lol!!
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 05:28 AM

There are Stars that are Bright,
and there are stars that, well,
are not so bright. Some dim.

Duck Off donald 2k5

This is important information
to know for Extrication Day.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 02:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Garry Denke:
Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
I'd know it when I see it!
Ladyman is a guy, soilguy.
[whoosh!]
That was the sound of your comment going over my head.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
whoosh!
G-d's rock collection on this Planet is called Stonehenge,
G-d's rock collection in this Universe is called Planets.
Their creatures are Secondary to rock.

You like soil. I like rocks.

G-d
Posted by: soilguy

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 06:59 PM

"You like soil. I like rocks."

Are you the guy who put all those rocks in my soil?
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/03/05 07:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
"You like soil. I like rocks."

Are you the guy who put all those rocks in my soil?
Oy. Nay, nay: I am BOT, r2e2, Route 66
( Rocks, rocks, 33 Rock )

What evidence would you need
to consider "God" as factual ?

? Rock ?
Posted by:

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/04/05 05:05 PM

Garry, I truly hope that you find your peace. Be at peace.
Sincerly,
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/04/05 06:28 PM

Thanks Mung.

RIP, Rock, 'n' Roll
(the three r's)

--Chorus
God gave rock, 'n' roll to you, gave rock, 'n' roll to you,
gave rock, 'n' roll to Everyone.
God gave rock, 'n' roll to you, gave rock, 'n' roll to you,
put it in the soul of Everyone.
--Kiss

RIP, Rock, 'n' Roll
(the three r's)

Bye Everyone.

Page 8...
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/15/05 02:47 PM

none! watch vanilla sky.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/16/05 01:08 PM

oops, I just realised that I come a cross as a theist with that "none" statement. What I meant was that there can never exist such proof. Just as there will never be proof that 1+1=9
Posted by: dirtydog

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/16/05 09:27 PM

err is there a proof that 1+1 = 2?

except semanticly I mean.
Posted by: dirtydog

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/16/05 10:03 PM

"Please stop using drugs. Lets examine science facts. The temperature at which water melts is zero degrees Celsius. Is there disagreement?"

I disagree! Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius!
Posted by: Philege

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/17/05 10:00 PM

There is only one evidence that God is factual, and that my friends is the BIBLE!
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/21/05 04:15 PM

Philege the foolish,
You are either a small person somewhere that derives great pleasure in annoying people, or you truly believe in all that 'god' rubbish and should be deported.
Posted by: Philege

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 11/21/05 11:02 PM

Ha ha ha!
Posted by: jjw

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/06/05 08:10 PM

?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??

That seems to be a fair non-denominational question. We are not being asked to believe in anything. Evidence is the common requisite for the proof of just about everything. A theory, by the nature of theories, may wait centuries for enough evidence to prove or disprove the assertions offered by the theory. Many people will die never knowing whether what they believed in so strongly was true or false.

To argue in favor of any position requires, in my opinion, the proponent be objective, unless, the situation consist of a true adversary situation so each side has the benefit of ideas formed to favor its views. In the law we have a term, Res Ipsa Loquiter. This is Latin for a common law concept meaning ?it speaks for itself?. In situations involving negligence the negligence can be so obvious, the facts so obvious, that negligence is obvious. An example would be when a surgeon amputates the wrong appendage. I recall one old case of a chair collapsing and the owner found negligent- he had the chair and was responsible for its service.

When it comes to God the mere fact of the existence of Matter, Earth and life forms fails to resolve anything because both science and a God offer a means for that to be. There should be some point of departure to argue for evidence that one idea or the other is more definitive or has more evidence in its support, Science has an explanation for life forms but nothing very specific for current humans. Initially, Evolution appears to be a potential explanation for all life forms but it is a very generalized approach lumping mankind in with frogs and apes. Now, we know we still have apes and gorillas around this Earth so at least some of our forefathers did not evolve into mankind. There is also the question of some missing links but that is too big an issue for this discussion.

Leaving science as not providing total evidence for the non-existence of God I will turn to what evidence remains to convince any one of the existence of God. The Bible offers our first source of evidence. We can conclude that humans that were not present when the activities recited were taking place wrote the Bible. This is hearsay but worth considering anyway as all that is available and historical. So the Bible says God created man in his own image. Mankind is here by design that is specific to mankind, an original item. Comparing all life forms we should find that mankind is truly unique and unlike any other known evolved creature. This is one point of departure from a generalized evolution of species that by nature cannot be presumed to single out one life form to be so unique. Also, if mankind is evolved from a specific life form similar to apes there must reasonably be something offered to disclose the point of separate evolutions. If evolution was working on all forms of life why are there not more speaking and reasoning animals like humans. If all life forms are in constantly progressive stages of improvement to survive over millions of years why did mankind get to be so far ahead of the other great varieties of life forms?

At this point, after all this wordage, I can only offer that science provides a generalized response to our origins while religion attempts to provide a more specific cause. To answer the original question seeking evidence for proof of Gods existence I, just for myself, would require a reason for our existence. Just because a creator can do something does not explain why he would do it. Neither science nor religious concepts adequately answer that question for me. Man-made ideas do not suffice. Please excuse the length of this reply, if not the content.
jjw
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/07/05 07:04 AM

Some where deep down we know that finding the reasons behind our own existence has a crucial link with our own future.
In the rude scientific sense one may like to argue that such a question has no meaning if the theory offers an indeterminate answer for its own creator. Which means as a creator if you ask the question then you must know the answer .. no theory can answer that.All the theory says is I dont know.or it says either ways.
Imagine someone all alone doing all his calculations and hardwork to create this World.Some day he might himself ask this question to himself "Who created me ?" Since this semantic possibility can not ruled out we say that Creator must be having the answer in a way which No theory is allowed to hold the complete answer ...However it doenst mean that no communication has been made.
#What if the explantion requires real time as a prerequisite for proper communication?
Which means unless the creator himself comes to explain what he means .. The knowledge may decay.
Thus all the confusion and debate is due to the supposed absence of Creator anywhere today.
Probably all the answers depends on who is explaining you and in what mood. Such is the complexity of the Ultimate Answer.
Interestingly if an ordinary tries to imagine the Higher Dimensions .. he or she may fail unless the expert guide is in the right mood.
The knowledge today is becoming more difficult to be completely represented on paper.
This is no news as the physical understanding has shown dependecies on the Carrier of the Information.
Thus the answer to your question :
?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??
There exists some evidence but it can no more be be distributed on paper.It is known or in a state of to-be-known for some reasons which is more than superstitious.
Posted by: jjw

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/16/05 01:51 AM

DKV replies:

Thus the answer to your question :
?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??
There exists some evidence but it can no more be be distributed on paper.It is known or in a state of to-be-known for some reasons which is more than superstitious.

jjw: It was not my question as originator.

Do you think DKV that you provided a logical response to the question? What evidence would you require? Are you suggesting such evidence does not exist? The evidence has dispursed? We should not bother to seek such evidence, or what?
Just curious.
jjw
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/16/05 05:33 PM

Perhaps our homosapien minds will one day evolve into beings that can comprehend what God is or what the force behind evolution is. Perhaps the reason for our existance is to be a link on the chain to the eventual superhuman mind who parrallels the God mind and the purpose of nature.

Unless our intelligent minds turn out to be a weak link and detrimental to our survival. Which actually makes sense to me because for all of our inventions, we're no longer in harmony with our environment. According to the theory of evolution, could we become less intellegent and less analytical and if those qualities are not optimum for our survival as a whole species?
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/28/05 08:31 PM

"the force behind evolution"
There is no force behind evolution. I once accidently added the wrong sauce to my sphagetti bolognese and hey presto! -I had created a really tasty dish, much better than the bolognese. I now continue to make that dish. That's evolution, accidental trial and error by nature. Take an atom out of the DNA over here because of radiation, it bonds another one. It works -it gets passed on. It doesn't work -it doesn't. I am astounded to learn that you don't know what evolution is. Start reading.
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/29/05 01:49 PM

You're right, Rob, I do have to get a book on evolution and start reading.

But, evolution seems to be a force in some way. Why does nature keep "trying"? Why doesn't it just stay a single celled organism and stop there? What is the movement? Or why is the movement? Why is there constant change? Why do the strings vibrate? They just do? Is that the only answer? The scientific inquiry comes to a halt? That's just the way it is. The way it is. "The Way" is. Sounds familiar... The Tao.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 12/29/05 06:54 PM

"But, evolution seems to be a force in some way. Why does nature keep "trying"? Why doesn't it just stay a single celled organism and stop there? What is the movement?"
Being one a person who HAS read books on evolution, statements like these make me cringe. If you are not an idiot, after doing some research, these statements will make you cringe also.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/02/06 12:20 PM

I'm not sure wether to take you seriously or not. But what the heck, I won't take any chances.

science, one defenition: Studies that normally encompass courses based on a knowledge of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate cause are designated Science (eg, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Nutrition, and Physics).
The key-word here is FACTS.

"They is not F**kin Way that Science can know who the created of the World"

Quite to the contrary, science is the ONLY thing that can explain how the universe started -if it had a beginning. Saying what you said is as stupid as saying we shouldn't use maths to find out what x is in the problem;
x^2 + 3x +8 = 0.

You, I understand, have no real appreciation for science. 'Science is good but must Stay at level of its own Understanding'. This may be true, humans may never advance far enough to be able to weild science in such a way to answer such important questions as why does everything exist etc... But since ALL of our understanding of nature comes from scientific studies, it is very reasonable to think that these questions can also be answered by science.
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/03/06 04:28 PM

"But since ALL of our understanding of nature comes from scientific studies, it is very reasonable to thing that these questions can also be answered by science."

That's all I'm asking....See how reasonable I am.

I do understand that in relation to the Universe, questioning minds have only been around for an infinitesimal amount of time. And eventually, science's level of understanding may catch up to my questions. But, I'll be dead by then. What's the harm in wondering, now?
It's pointless to wonder about the unanswerable questions of reality? So what if it's a pointless passtime? Could be a definition in and of itself of reality based on science as we know it...reality could be just a pointless passtime.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/06/06 07:06 PM

Join the cryogenics club!
-I am.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/07/06 06:18 AM

Justine:

Reality is pointless. But it is better than the alternative.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/07/06 09:31 PM

Reality's alternative? What's that -fantasy?
"But it is better than the alternative."
That depends.
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/09/06 06:00 PM

Is it better than the alternative? (nothingness?)

If reality is pointless than this question gets really tough doesn't it. Rob's right. It does depend. Are we cursed with existence or are we gifted with existence? both?

For myself, a pointless life is only better compared to nothingness if I have lead a majority of happy moments. Or at least, if the quality of those moments of happiness outweighed my moments of pain.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/10/06 01:27 PM

But when you die you go back to this nothingness and all the reality is good for nothing.
Can you remember how it was before you were born? Shall I tell you that 'you' were once the happiest cave-woman in the world, what does this mean to you? -Nothing, you don't care.

P.S. I don't believe in reincarnation, I was just using it as an example because you can't tell a dead person that -because they are dead.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/10/06 04:47 PM

But when you die you go back to this nothingness and all the reality is good for nothing.


Rob meets Sartre & Nietzsche.

Blacknad.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/10/06 06:06 PM

And precisely what is wrong with that Blacknad? Is this all about your insecurity and inability to cope with reality as I have aluded in the past?

Perhaps a couple of quotes: one from Isaac Asimov the other from Carl Sagan are in order here:

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
~ Asimov

during one of his talks on religion one irate member of the audience asked him "Now that you've debunked everything that makes human beings feel worthwhile, what do you suggest we do?"

Sagan's answer was "Go do something worthwhile."

And that is my suggestion to you Blacknad ... do something worthwhile. Do not justify your pitiful existence by pointing to the invisible purple rhinoceros. There are people starving to death ... help them. There are elderly people in need of care such as driving them to the doctor's office ... help them. There is massive corruption in the halls of government ... help expose it.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/10/06 07:54 PM

Everyone keeps talking about how we should expose the government. Tell me, if you were to get bitten by the most deadly snake and a chain-saw was close by, would you or would you not saw off your arm to stop your impending death? I would -it is your brain cells that make this decision, no doubt if this decision was up to the arm-cells they would not do it, there is always hope. On that same subject, many peoples 'brain cells' make them addicted to drugs that are harmful to the rest of the body, yet they continue to use them. I do not know what kind of government we have. So I'm hesitant to rebel against them. Why is the government always after money?
Case 1 -they are self-serving greedy people.
Case 2 -it is part of a strategy to ensure the well being of the people they govern.

What do I know?

P.S. Listen to Immortal Technique
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/10/06 11:22 PM

And precisely what is wrong with that Blacknad? Is this all about your insecurity and inability to cope with reality as I have aluded in the past?

DA, I know you think that my belief in God is naught but a psychological foil, but believe it or not, I want the truth and nothing but.

For a variety of reasons, (some of which I have written about, the rest I would not preach about), I have come to a belief in God and found it to be dependable, consistent, and when properly thought out - an excellent descriptor of human character and its associated issues - better than Freud and a host of others.

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/10/06 11:29 PM

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
~ Asimov

Agreed. This is 'God of the Gaps' which is a failed philosophy.

I believe because of evidence FOR God... not because of evidence lacking for a wholly naturalistic view of existence.

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/11/06 12:04 AM

Man on his relentless quest to dominate nature turns to science in curiosity and to religion in frustration and impatience. Having chosen the path of religion and speculating ignorantly for years over nature he comes to a conclusion. Feeling he has dominated nature at last, he climbs to the highest point he can find during a storm. At this point he stands and outstretches his arms to the heavens in a dramatic representation of his conquest with the rain thundering down around him and great flashes illuminating the sky. Here he stands, convinced he is one with nature and that there is some grand meaning behind his existence, and that this point is the climactic culmination of mankinds existence as he has achieved wisdome to account for the world -because he has found god.
Alas, the stupid [censored] gets struck by lightning and all the scientists have a good laugh at the fact that he chose to go the highest point in a storm.
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/11/06 03:50 PM

"Here he stands, convinced he is one with nature and that there is some grand meaning behind his existence"

I think we can all say that we are one with nature. That there is some grand meaning behind this existence....POSSIBLE...but unprovable.

My question is.....If there's no way to factually prove the existence or non-existence of meaning behind life....then which is the healthier belief? If I HAD to make a choice to believe or not to believe and there's no proof for either perspective....statistically, which viewpoint supports a healthier, happier life? Which is good for me? I'm leaning towards believing in something as a healthier choice.

In Rob's example, the way that someone convinced that life is pointless lives a happier life is in the feeling that they have not been conned or duped, that they are somehow smarter than the believers.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/11/06 06:38 PM

Rob - "Man on his relentless quest to dominate nature turns to science in curiosity and to religion in frustration and impatience. Having chosen the path of religion and speculating ignorantly for years over nature he comes to a conclusion. Feeling he has dominated nature at last, he climbs to the highest point he can find during a storm. At this point he stands and outstretches his arms to the heavens in a dramatic representation of his conquest with the rain thundering down around him and great flashes illuminating the sky. Here he stands, convinced he is one with nature and that there is some grand meaning behind his existence, and that this point is the climactic culmination of mankinds existence as he has achieved wisdome to account for the world -because he has found god.
Alas, the stupid [censored] gets struck by lightning and all the scientists have a good laugh at the fact that he chose to go the highest point in a storm."


- What is this little story? What is it supposed to prove? I could change the end and say that he stands on the top of the mountain and is taken up into heaven, and the scientists have a good scratch of their heads because they can't explain it.

Equally pointless and silly.

Potential moderator, moderate thyself.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/11/06 10:07 PM

Good one.

I just thought I'd garnish the topic with a little creative-writing.

The (apparently well concealed) point was that there are two ways to solve problems;
1. Study
2. Dream
(see very beginning)

Once again, good reply! smile
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/12/06 02:31 PM

"the point....there are two ways to solve problems;
1. Study
2. Dream"

Strange...this post is more elequent than your original story.
It's right up there with your description of man as a waterfall.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/13/06 06:28 PM

lol -thanks.

"It's right up there with your description of man as a waterfall."

Actually this applies to all living things. This also has a nicer sound because of assonance; living things are like...
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/13/06 10:45 PM

"I think we can all say that we are one with nature. That there is some grand meaning behind this existence....POSSIBLE...but unprovable.

My question is.....If there's no way to factually prove the existence or non-existence of meaning behind life....then which is the healthier belief? If I HAD to make a choice to believe or not to believe and there's no proof for either perspective....statistically, which viewpoint supports a healthier, happier life? Which is good for me? I'm leaning towards believing in something as a healthier choice.

In Rob's example, the way that someone convinced that life is pointless lives a happier life is in the feeling that they have not been conned or duped, that they are somehow smarter than the believers."

An excellent post! I personally would rather know the truth, no matter what. The knowlege that I know the truth is extremely satisfying and I prefer satisfaction over fun -or anything really.

But then, there's no way to really and truly know if something is true. So, actually, self-delusion is the way to go! But I just can't do it.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/13/06 11:24 PM

Self delusion in the way it is used here is surely the act of choosing to believe in something you know to be false. You delude yourself.

It is a dishonest act, and smacks of a cowardice that refuses to take the harder road.

If I weigh up the evidence, combined with my experience and find a belief in God compelling, and it in no way contradicts what good science is telling me, then I am not deluding myself - I am making an honest choice. I cannot choose to believe anything other, whilst remaining true to myself.

If there is no God and therefore no meaning, them be damned with it, I'll accept it and go the only honest route - the nihilistic hedonistic one.

I just don't accept that an honest, consistent, well-examined religious belief is at all cowardly and self-delusory.

And I don't see how my belief is at all retrograde to societies needs. In fact could I be so arrogant as to say that certain aspects actually add some value?

I suspect you won't let me get away with that smile

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/14/06 02:04 PM

I'll let DA take care of it. smile
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/14/06 10:28 PM

Blacknad wrote:
"If I weigh up the evidence, combined with my experience and find a belief in God compelling, and it in no way contradicts what good science is telling me, then I am not deluding myself"

You are correct that you are not deluding yourself in the same way that a psychotic person who hears voices is not deluding themselves when they talk back. They are most certainly delusional but not self-deluding.

The question you should be asking is what evidence you are considering as rational.

Do you consider an authorless book a source to be considered?

Do you consider a book that has admittedly been rewritten for political purposes as evidence?

Do you have a basis for believing that the accident of your birth gives one theology more value than another? And if not have you explored, with equal effort, all other possible theologies?

What weight have you put on the fact that the theology you subscribe to believes the universe was created by the creator of the AIDs virus? Also malaria, childhood leukemia, and every other horrible and deadly disease that afflicts innocent newborn children?

What weight have you put on the fact that the theology you subscribe to believes in surrendering power to the self-confessed mass murderer of every living creature on earth except the members of one family?

What weight have you put on the fact that the theology you subscribe to believes in surrendering power to the self-confessed mass murderer of every first born male child in an entire country?

What weight have you put on the fact that the theology you subscribe to believes in surrendering power to a creature that has the power to instantly remove all evil and suffering from the world and chooses not to?

There is lots of evidence out their blacknad. Lets see if you have the moral courage to stand up and explain how you arrived at your decision based on each piece of evidence you reviewed?

Personally? If I were ever convinced that such a monster existed, other than in the minds of weak-minded humans, ... I would do everything in my power to bring it to justice. Give it a fair trial. And sentence it to an eternity in a blackhole.

But blacknad lets consider more of what you wrote:
"If there is no God and therefore no meaning"

Why do you equate the two? I don't. I can't think of a single person I know that does? I think this is a delusional belief.

You are stating that some external entity gives your life meaning and that if that external entity and its external program doesn't exist you are without meaning. That is extraordinarily sad. You should, and I say this seriously and sincerely, talk to a medical professional about the lack of ability to find meaning in your life without serving some other entity's plan. I can think of nothing sadder than a life of self-imposed slavery.

For you to indicate, as you have, that if there is no god and their is no eternal damnation you would be ... to use your words ... "nihilistic" and "hedonistic" is pathetic. No eternal damnation and you are incapable of self-constrol, self-restraint, and civilize social behaviour.

The threat you appear to be making is that if we don't leave you in your delusional state you will require restraint by law enforcement officers.

Quite an interesting group of statements from someone claiming the moral high ground.
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/17/06 05:12 PM

What would happen if Christians dropped the Bible? Still went to church and said personal prayers, supported each other through joys and sorrows, continued to collect money to care for the poor and helpless, but let go of the "rule book"? They could keep Christ/God as "the peace that passes understanding".
I guess they would turn into Humanists.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/17/06 11:37 PM

Good thought Justine but let me put it to you another way.

What would happen if Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hinus, Buddhists, etc. all dropped their biases, dropped the self-righteousness and replaced it with humility. Stopped wasting time going to church, praying, and reading their authorless mistranslated books ... and ... instead ... devoted that same time to actually performing community service helping those who are most in need of help. What would happen if instead of giving billions of dollars to support buildings, theologians, temples, mosques, churches, etc. ... instead ... they contributed that money to research universities to develop cures for malaria, leukemia, and birth defects.

Would a truly moral god not think more of them?

If not ... then you have a prima facia case for this god having a major ego problem and caring more about its ego than about the welfare of the people it created.

You can't have it both ways. A choice is required. If 'god' exists does it want us to behave well or toady up like sycophants and worship it even while doing bad things? A simple question worthy of a simple Boolean answer.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/18/06 01:36 PM

IF 'god' exists. pfft!
If it truly did create man in it's own image then the answer is -true -it wants us to behave like sycophants and worship it even while doing bad things.
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/18/06 02:10 PM

I agree with everything you said, except, I do see good reasons for Church or gathering together regularly for silent contemplation and community.
Especially, because many churches tend to open their doors and socialize with people who may not fit, socially, anywhere else.

The Unitarian Universalists are a nice example. And they have a great sense of responsibility to community service and collecting money to put towards great causes. They tend to quote great literary works or spoken words of great minds in their sermons, extrapolating the wisdom of man in order to emphasis their message for the week.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/18/06 06:52 PM

Justine what is it you can do, in silent contemplation, in a place that cost millions of dollars and has gold ornamentation that you can not do in the privacy of your own home or sitting on a hilltop overlooking a beautiful beach or other part of nature?

Can you not invite those persons you wish to be with into your home? Onto the beach? Do you really need to spend billions of dollars each and every year that could provide a cure for malaria? Is your need for a "place of worship" more compelling than someone else's need for a cure for leukemia that is killing their child? I don't think so and I doubt you do either.

Want an open door policy ... open the door of your house to a stranger. Or, better yet, open your heart and checkbook to a research facility doing good work. Remember there is no surgeon on this planet that has not saved more lives than all of the religious organizations in your city.

I've nothing against the Unitarian's or any other specific denomination but, in good conscience, answer the following questions:

1. How much money do they take in each year?
2. How much of it is NOT contributed to good causes?
3. How many research chairs at medical schools could be funded with that money?

I rest my case.

You want to get together and quote literary works ... by all means do so. But why should tax payers subsidize you? And why does this require spending millions of dollar on buildings and offices? For how many weeks or months can a cure for malaria be delayed because Unitarian Universalists, with tax payer subsidy, sit around on their bottoms discussing literary works rather than actually doing something useful for the community?
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/19/06 04:03 PM

Have you ever driven through a downtrodden neighborhood on Sunday morning and seen people dressed in their Sunday best with their heads held a little higher? They've got a place to go of their own and they will be relatively safe there with their community.

I understand you points against wasting money on disgustingly huge churches peopled by affluent members who feel good about themselves when they donate to the church when they are really not doing enough. None of us do enough, really.
Every one of us should only keep enough money to support a meager lifestyle and donate every other penny to the world's greatest needs. And if we actually saw those needs and knew those people personally...we would. But we are blinded by our addiction to entertainment and materialism. We don't see the world. How sad it is.

Funny thing about your comments...I think Christian Churches were originally intended to be held in peoples' homes.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/19/06 07:44 PM

Does it make you feel better knowing that people in pain and suffering have slightly better posture?

Better that one day a week they hold their heads up when they feel like h... the other six?

Shouldn't you be concerned with the fact that they were feeling so miserable the previous 6 days that you noticed the difference?

Wouldn't it be better if they felt good and lived decent lives every day? I am horrified that you take pride in the fact that you gave a miserable person a few hours of comfort when you and the rest of the religious community could inconvience yourselves a little bit and use that money to make a real, substantive, and permanent difference.

What you have described, above, is one of the worst sins committed in the name of religion. The sin of hypocrisy.

You are correct ... Christian churches were originally intended to be held in people's homes. Then the self-serving self-righteous hypocrites saw a way to sit in warm comfortable buildings and shield their eyes from the real world. They could feel good about their "good works" while doing little more than giving table scraps.

Why do you think some of us are so offended. You have the right to do with your money and time as you choose. But if you brag about it in public don't surprise when other note the hypocrisy.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/19/06 11:01 PM

The question you all need to ask is; should one delude themself to have a more enjoyable life and some hope?

My answer (if you are interested) = no
Posted by: Justine

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/20/06 05:18 PM

Stop being a goofball and blaming me DA. I'm not talking about me here. I'm not defending the whole of Christianity....I'm just noticing the positive. You've got the negative covered. Just helping you to fine tune your arguments.

It is not hypocracy to try to take in all sides of an issue. It's blind predjudice not to do so. And arguments stemming from predjudice are unaffective.

Spirituality is not all bad. It does some good for people who's lives are too hard to bear alone.

Don't pick on me...I'm very useful and productive in places most people would never dare to venture. I am concerned about people and the Earth we share. Deeply concerned.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/20/06 07:35 PM

Sorry Justine ... I thought you were talking about yourself.

But I see no positive.

I see nothing positive in self-righteous hypocrisy. I see nothing positive in brain-washing children. I see nothing positive in wilfull ignorance.

Spirituality is not at all bad provided it is accompanied by the integrity to acknowledge itself for what it is. Turning inward. Self-centered and self-serving. I'm not offended by the act ... but by the hypocrisy with which it seems intimately connected.

And, once again, my apology if you were not talking about yourself.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/20/06 10:35 PM

Dan,

I have just let you get on with bashing Christianity, even though you are making the mistake of imagining you know authentic Christianity. You are muddled up by your American Fundamentalist Christians who would vote in American history's thickest and possibly most damaging President simply because he adheres to the same unthinking, arrogant brand of religiosity that they do.

The clear marker for authentic Christianity is 'does it depart from Christ's example and teaching?'

I would submit that much of this current age's Churchianity does depart from it, but fortunately for them, stupidity is no bar to acceptance.

And I would not be so bold as to say I always hold to those teachings, you know otherwise - but I try to accord them the respect they are due.

You have made many statements and posed many questions and for my own interest I will answer some of them (it helps me understand and question what I believe), but I do not for one moment think it will make one iota of difference for you.

You are not an atheist but an anti-theist, and if you had to concede one point you would simply move to the next in an unending chain of criticisms.

And you presume you know how my church spends it money (money we only accept from members who have a say in where that money goes, and discourage visitors from giving). I have posted before on this, but one of the things it does is go to pay a meagre salary for my disabled step-Father who walks with two walking sticks but is a tireless worker in our community, looking after the elderly, a trained counsellor counselling the needy and the mentally fragile, helping people in debt, supporting alcoholics and visiting the housebound and the lonely (and not pushing the gospel down their throats, because he wants to behave with integrity and do good simply because it is the right thing to do and not for mercenary evangelical reasons).

I am sorry if you have never met any Christians like him - thoroughly grounded in the life of Christ - with enough religion to truly love and continually extend himself beyond his own needs. As opposed to your Fundamentalists who probably never read their Bible and think things through, and are fixated on the passages that allow them to fear and judge those around them.

I am not arrogant enough to say that Christianity makes me better than anyone else - spend 10 minutes with my wife and she will let you know what a fool I am and recount my many faults. But I do believe that in Christ I see the truth.

So feel free to keep bashing Churchianity - I am unoffended and sometimes see the truth in what you say - I feel the church is often guilty and would benefit from a bit of your medicine.

Sorry if I preach on SAGG, but it is only the antithesis of your own anti-theist preaching.

Blacknad.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/20/06 11:43 PM

Then lets have a serious discussion of Christianity. Lets start with its roots and offend our Jewish and Muslim friends too as all three religious traditions start off with Abraham/Ibrahim, and all three are actually corruptions of the Babylonian poem known as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Can we agree this far? And if not lets just top here and you dispute either of the above two statements by pointing to verifiable fact.

Then Judiasm takes off on its own and adds the first five books along with this little thing called the Ten Commandments. Now take off a few days and spend some time comparing the Ten Commandments, as printed by every Christian denomination, and compare that to the one handed down, unchanged, by Jewish tradition from long before Jesus Christ was born.

Do you see a problem here?

The problem is that there is no such thing as authentic Christianity as the roots of the religion are corrupted even before you get to the birth of Christ. How can you build a religion on a corrupt foundation?

Did you do what I asked? Did you compare the ten simple declarative sentences? Are you prepared to debate this with me so far?

Then we get to the birth of Christ which unfortunately was never recorded, never happened in the year 0 or 1, never happened during the monh of December, but which is worshipped that way by Christianity. Do you detect a little problem here with respect to integrity? A little problem with the house being built on a shaky foundation?

Then take a good look at the gross inconsistencies of fact that exist in the New Testament. If there is even one ... the house of cards falls because if something is not true ... then it is impossible to tell if any of it is true.

So if you can find an authentic Christian, with an authentic form of Christianity, that can be shown to be without obvious corruption of the belief system I would be very very interested.

But even after you do ... you will still be talking about people that worship the self-confessed genocidal maniac that killed every person on this planet (except on family) and every first-born male in a country. And without once considering or caring about separating the innocent from the guilty. A regular Hannibal Lecter. And why do I say that?

"God's choices in inflicting suffering are not satisfactory to us, nor are they understandable, unless innocence offends him. Clearly he needs some help in directing the blind fury with which he flogs the Earth."
~ Mr. Mason, from 'Hannibal'

Because it is the truth.
Posted by: jjw

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/21/06 01:04 AM

Hi DA:

This Post concerned what proof would "you" need to be satisfied that god exists.

From the consistent content of your contributions on any subject of god or religion I question that you should not be offering replies to this question. You are on record in full denial of any potential god that has been theorized or worshiped so "proof" of a god is beyound your comprehension. You have removed yourself from objective discussion of this issue. Now you want to rant at those that may wish to think there may be a god. Why? Do you want to convert them to your way. Are you an example of the thinking processes that exist in those that deny the possible existence of a god for any one, jew or christian or whatever?

You frequently point out that DKV needs help. Do you see DKV rant negative with the determination that you exibit. jjw does not give a damn about other peoples religious beliefs so I am compelled to wonder why you come on so adamant?
Cheers!
jjw
Posted by: Eduardo

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/21/06 02:53 AM

Sorry to but in on this thread but to me ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER would be cool.

When you've got some, email me, and then I'll get out of bed on Sunday morning and check it out.

Until then nighty night.

Mysterious E
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/21/06 05:32 AM

jjw004. You reask the the original question what proof would I need. Very simply one of two things.

1. I would need evidence that something existed in this universe that could not be explained by the laws of physics but that can only be explained by citing a vengeful egotistical deity.

2. An explanation for the intentional setting up for failure of Adam and Eve. The cruel setting up of a circumstance in which the outcome was known thus providing the excuse for the creation of murder, genocide, torture, rape, illness, and all other evils.

And if you happened to believe in Satan then an explanation of why he/she/it is either (A) incapable of correcting its mistake or (B) chooses not to.

And the explanations had better be damned good. Because otherwise I'd put cuffs on him and drag him into the Hague where he belongs.
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/27/06 12:14 AM

what evidence would you need to consider god as factual?

Evidence that 1+1=3
Posted by: RM

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/27/06 11:16 AM

It is so obvious that no two separate triangles of a Koch snowflake will ever touch but we have no way to prove this because of that annoying concept of infinity, the same thing that stops us from disproving the existence of any creator...
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/27/06 02:07 PM

Actually Rob it is remarkably simple to disprove the existence of a creator.

Our definition of what exists, whether in art or science is simply based upon its ability to cause an effect. Religion exists ... it has been responsible for murderous attrocities. Stars exist. People exist. Philosophical ideas exist (that is the idea itself exists). Books about god exist and have had an effect.

But if you take away the books, and you take away the preachers who, and you take away the tax exemptions, there is nothing left. Well nothing except a deep uneasiness in many people's minds that makes them want to invent something like a religion, or philosophy, or nationalism, or gang to which they can belong.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/27/06 03:06 PM

"Actually Rob it is remarkably simple to disprove the existence of a creator."

That argument doesn't disprove the existence of god. What it does demonstrate is that there's no reason to actually believe in a creator. That's not the same thing, although the two statements might have the same practical result.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/27/06 03:10 PM

Pretty amusing little story I read somewhere else (ivillage.com). I don't know where it originated.

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple.

The man spoke first: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the sh!t out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh, yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well, no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money, and he kicks the sh!t out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if
you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a
twenty dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the sh!t of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight
from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other
times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of
Karl letterhead.

There were eleven items listed:

1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the sh!t out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the sh!t out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the sh!t out of people just because they're
different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says, 'Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good
enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says, 'Hank dictated this list himself.'
Besides, item 2 says, 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says, 'Eat
right,' and item 8 says, 'Wash your hands after going to the
bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be
true, too."

Me: "But 9 says, 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2,
and 6 says, 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain
wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2.
As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for
sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock...."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the moon
came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where
the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we
know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
saying, 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But.... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes.

John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything
else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken.

John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any
kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La
la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that...."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints.

John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't
have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the sh!t out of you I'll be
there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you,
you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual? - 01/28/06 02:09 AM

Dear Fiend: Are you incapable of providing a link to iVillage.com. Is that asking too much of you? Thanks for wasting an entire page with off-topic nonsense. It provides so much value that no doubt the moderators will embrace it.