ponderer

I received an email message from the moderator about suspending my account, to which I relied. I ask him to pass on my message.

Seems it was too much to ask, so I waited for my account to come unsuspended to pass on my own message.

I had been keeping this to myself, but once it got out, I felt I might as well contact someone I could trust to go over it with me, so I could be sure I had done everything correctly.

I just happen to have a childhood friend who is quite knowledgeable in the particular area I was working. He specialized in that.

We had a discussion and he pointed out where I had made a mistake. (Palm of hand to forehead).

So all this discordance was unnecessary. I am retracting my claim to have developed a proof of the existence of God.

You can all relax and forget about it.

Sorry to have gotten some of you stirred up.

Still, I did did not see how it made any difference to anyone's opinion. Without seeing the supposed proof, no one had any reason to take it seriously.

It was something I was personally comfortable with, and that I never intended to let out at all. Sadly I reacted emotionally to a challenge letting slip and got dogged over my response.

Quite frankly, I felt harassed, about something that I made it clear that I did not care to discuss, with the moderator even threatening me and suspending my account.

I made it clear that I did not want to discuss it further on religious grounds, but my religion was not respected.

This is a religion forum and if you cannot respect a person's religion on a official basis, I find this to be quite offensive and contrary to standards of human rights.

If such harassment is to be tolerated here, I really don't want to be here anymore.

I will be leaving now.

I wish you all the best.

You just made my point.

 

This might be true in mathematics, but it isn't true in logical statements. In fact, this is what you call a logical fallacy.

 

Please read about "Non Sequitor", and "undistributed middle".

 

Example of the form "A=B and C=B therefore C=B" (FALSE)

 

 

Example of the form "A=B, B is true therefore A" (FALSE)

 

 

There are other examples of this fallacy. It doesn't work in science.

 

 

 

 

Let's test this:

 

(A=B) God is invisible.

(B=C) Invisible is nonexistent.

(A=C) God is nonexistent.

According to your statement, the above is true. Is it?

 

(A=B) Alex is a man.

(B=C) A man has a beard.

(A=C) Alex has a beard.

This isn't necessarily true.

 

You should really go over logic, ponderer.

 

That said, you are, once again, ignoring my questions. I asked you to lay out the *EVIDENCE* so we can examine them. Instead, you fall back into the "it's so obvious" and it's "axiomatic" and refuse to show us the magnitude of such amazingly convincing set of evidence.

 

That won't work here, ponderer. Even *if* A=B,B=C means A=C (and it doesn't) you still need to give us the obvious A, B and C that will convince us.

 

Without that, you're talking empty claims.

 

 

I think this is the crux of the problem here. I find it very ironic. Science is not axiomatic. Religion can be, but science is by definition *against* axioms. That's why the scientific methods exist. IT's why we are asking you for your evidence so we can examine them. It's why papers are peer-reviewed and retested again and again.

 

The fact *you* think axiomatically does not mean that's how science works.

 

 

 

Everyone is frustrated because you came to a science forum and you refuse to admit you don't know what science means, and how it's done.

 

Multiple people repeatedly tell you that your concept of science is wrong. You seem to think every last one of those people are wrong, and you're the only one who's right. If that's what you think, you should reconsider the forum you discuss in and, perhaps, go to a theism forum. People would love to talk to you about axioms and axiomatic knowledge there.

 

Put up the evidence already so we discuss something of essence. You won't convince anyone without it, because for us this is far from "obvious".

 

~mooey

I have appologized to the forum for making an assertion which I refuse to substantiate. I have conceded your point about forum rules. Yes you are right about that. But that's all you have, and it is not even related to the assertion itself.

I am exercising great patience with you. It is good training. Thanks for that. I have needed to learn more patience. In the past I would have torn a strip off you so wide you would be feeling it for some time, using words like pompous, arrogant, and clueless. This is wonderful progress for me.

A=B B=C so A=C was not part of the proof, it was just a metaphor to explain the simple english which you somehow failed to comprehend, which really inspires me to feel your competence. You seem to have serious reading comprehension skills. This is because you have a negative filter that must view anything I say as being flawed. Even if nothing said is flawed, but it can be misinterpreted in a way that is flawed, you will do that. If I have not exposed a supposed flawed, so you just assume it.

Tell me what part of the simplest geometry lends itself to flights of fancy? Geometry is mathematics. You have read this now explain yourself. It is plain simple english once more. Show your high powers of reasoning and comprehension.

What makes you think, anything besides the initial premise and mathematics was used?

You have no idea how the math and/or logic have been applied, so you have no basis for being critical of the process.

You are making assumptions left and right. All of them negative and critical.

But, I did say to condescend some more if it makes you feel better, so I hope you feel better.

If you want to be critical and sink your teeth into something, the premise is the first step of the process, the only part you will ever see. Here's your chance to show what a fool I am. Tell me what's wrong with the premise and how it is unscientific and how it shows I do not know what I am doing. That's why I posted it. Forget I claimed to prove that God exists. I have appologized for making the assertion. Now let us set it aside. Pretend that I have come to you with this idea for finding a TOE. Tell me why this is a bad premise for a TOE. Tell me why it makes no sense, and why it fails to take this or that into account. Tell me why such a premise belongs on a theology forum, and is just bad science. Put it to bed before it even gets started.

That is all you actually have to go on. It is the only thing you have to criticize besides my refusal to explain further.

It is the actual first step in the proof.

You want to unload, there is your chance. After the premise that are no other assumptions.

After the premise, there is no escaping the conclusion. At first it looks like that can't be right. How can that be? That can't be possible. There must be other explanations, that will come to you later. You retrace and rethink, but once you consider it long enough and look at it from different angles, there is no way out, except to reject the premise. So reject it already.

I know you want more to go on, but I have told you why I will not provide it. You have only the intial premise to criticize.

You are making unsubstantiated assertions now about me. Now prove you are right, or go somewhere else where attacking other people is considered acceptable.

Better yet. Just let it go. Seriously. You don't believe it or in God. Why are you even in a religion forum except to "set believers straight"?

Nobody expects the spanish science inquisition!

Let me fill you in. It is a science site, and there are many science forums. In a science forum you expect that participants will actually believe in science and have a positive outlook about the usefulness of science and will contribute discussion in that light. Detractors are sent away.

In a religion forum you would expect people to believe in religion, have a positive outlook about the usefulness of religion, and contribute to the discussion in that light. I am not posting this is a physics forum or a peer reviewed journal.

Just what is your motivation and imperative here? Why are you here?

If you cannot offer constructive criticism of the premise, the worst you can say justifiably is that it starts well, but you would have to see the rest of it to believe it.

Instead you are being hostile and derrogatory. Even insulting.

This is why I said you were being emotional. Your responses are not rational. You are taking it personally for some reason.

Say, that's a lot better than pompous, arrogant, and clueless. I'm making progress.

By the why I said I did not think you were an idiot. You are beginning to change my mind.

Forgive me if I am missing something, but it seems like you've gone "Occams' Razor + reducibility = God axiomatically exists"

 

Occam's Razor states that if observations support two hypotheses equally, the simpler of the two is more likely to be correct. To evaluate the above proof, we need to know what the observations are, what the two competing hypotheses are, how you tested significance and how the you've justified one to be simpler than the other. Otherwise the premise is nonsensical, at least in a scientific context, which is more or less what I think people are taking issue with.

The complexity of an explanation within the premise has at its root the number of distinct substances and the associated dynamic geometric description of their distribution and behavior.

I don't understand what you are driving at.

The relative complexity of geometric shapes and arrangements is fairly straight forward for the most part. However, as a caveat, we must consider that in a reductionist environment, more instances do not equal more complexity. The introduction of more instances is accepted it they are identical and they reduce the complexity of the root explanation. Thus the existence of electrons, protons, and electrons are accepted even though they must exist in countless numbers, resulting in very complex geometry. There are fewer of them in type, than there are of things that would have to each be considered their own primary substance, if they did not exsist, and their dynamic geometry is simpler than the sum of the countless gross geometric shapes into which they can be assembled. In generating a TOE we are concerned with the root geometry of the system, which may be then employed to manifest all else, and not the overall well know geometric complexity of everything out there.

Surely you know these things already.

And yes, without knowing the observations you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is why I felt safe talking about it to a point.

Outing God would be an offense to God. It is for God to come out if and when he is ready. It is not for me to expose him in a way or at a time that he does not wish to be exposed.

I am a guest in God's house, and I really like what he has done with the place, and I would like to make a long term commitment, and stick around. I am sure he has his reasons.

 

It's the way of axiomatic religious thought, perhaps, but not the way of scientific thought.

Say what?!

I am sure if you think that over you will reconsider.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C

Certain facts (A=B and B=C) in association will show the obvious (A=C). If you do not consider these facts together (A=B and B=C), you do not see the obvious conclusion. It is how science works. It is how axioms work. It is the way of things. I have no idea what you are intending to say. Every axiom must be considered to be timeless, so that there was for each a very long time before they were discovered, because no one happened to consider the facts together in such a way that the conclusion was obvious. I think you need to reread the premise. You seem to think all the facts are specifically itemized in the premise. It is a premise for a TOE! A premise for a TOE must include the given universe. Perhaps, it should read, "Given the universe we live in and that on cosmological and subatomic scales the simplest explanation is the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be expressed soley in dynamic geometry, and that only the simplest explanatory geometry will be considered, based soley on geometric complexity ....

In any case everyone is upset about my refusal to substantiate my assertion, so I appoligize for breaching the forum rules. I will refrain from making such assertions in the future and keep such things to myself. If I wish to share something I have discovered I will go through a publication process.

I think nothing. I asked you a set of questions, and you ignored them.

 

You still ignore them.

 

 

We don't go by belief in this forum, ponderer, and I attach no attributes to you at all. I read your comment, I made comments of my own.

I don't really care if you're condescending or not, I care about the questions and comments I made. Do you have answers at all?

 

 

Actually, I asked for specific things.

 

You seem to be the one avoiding an answer.

 

 

The only thing that upsets me is your refusal to cooperate and actually respond to questions. It's very frustrating.

 

 

 

 

You're the one who made assumptions to begin with, and not for the first time. I answered in kind, after the second attempt to get you to cooperate.

 

You keep saying that the conclusion is a given, that you don't NEED to explain because it's so plainly visible, so obvious. It's NOT obvious, and you NEED to supply better proof. It takes two to tango, stop putting thoughts into our heads and tell us we are "convinced" by evidence far from convincing -- that's condescending on its own.

 

 

 

Are you going to stomp your feet on the ground about what we think of you, or are you going to actually answer our claims?

 

~mooey

 

ponderer, just another note here. Check out your OWN post (the one Ianswered) again.

 

see, here:

 

"I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need."

What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to explain any proofs because it's axiomatic. So if I don't accept your explanation I'm the idiot? What, really, are you saying?

You made claims, you need to explain them, and if you made explanations on another thread you should either link to them or explain them again. You're the one being condescending here. Making claims and then refusing to participate in a proper discussion because *you* think your own proof is axiomatic is not debating, it's LECTURING, and that (soap boxing, lecturing, preaching) is against our rules.

 

Also, "good luck finding your way" is condescending. I answered in kind.

 

Please answer my points.

I was going to edit my post when I saw your reply. When I said "without even knowing me", I meant to say, "without even knowing the reasoning or me". So, you have no basis for believing the assertion, and no basis for disbelieving it, except that it conflicts with your world view, and you are possibly suspicious due to some past experience.

And that is of course your objection. That I am not supplying the reasoning.

If you are upset/frustrated, it is understandable.

You find no obvious connection between the premise and the conclusion.

It is the way of things. I do not think you are an idiot. Once you look at the right facts in association something can look obvious. But you have to know what facts to look at.

That is not the point. The point is that if I am unwilling to substantiate a claim, I should not make it. It is bound to result in this sort of situtation.

Being unwilling to substantiate an assertion is the same as being unable from a functional standpoint, for the observer.

Great. I challenged yours back. That's why we're a debate forum, and not a religion-marketing yellow pages book.

 

Of course there's a need. You just refuse to give proper reasoning, by saying "axiomatic", and you convince no one. We're not here to listen to you soapbox; do you want to debate, or not?

 

 

Obviously you misread.

 

 

I don't go around putting words in your mouth - don't put words in mine. Just like any other "scientific" claim (which yours isn't, 'cause it's unfalsifiable, but okay) the burden of proof seems to be on you. You just refuse to give it, claiming it's "axiomatic" and thinking we lost our way by not agreeing with you.

 

That's preaching. Not only will it not benefit anything in this debate, it's also against our rules.

 

You too.

You seem to think I set out intending to prove that God exists, or that I made some sort of logical copout. You imply prejudice that does not exist in the premise, or incompetence/ignorance in applying the reasoning.

Your lack of belief in my assertion requires that you attribute these qualities to me without even knowing me. You are making negative assumptions about me and being quite condescending.

This appears to be an emotional response based on my refusal to explain further, and the disruptive nature of the assertion within your world view.

I am sorry if I have upset you.

Have a nice day. Condescend some more if it makes you feel better.

Great. I challenged yours back. That's why we're a debate forum, and not a religion-marketing yellow pages book.

 

Of course there's a need. You just refuse to give proper reasoning, by saying "axiomatic", and you convince no one. We're not here to listen to you soapbox; do you want to debate, or not?

 

 

Obviously you misread.

 

 

I don't go around putting words in your mouth - don't put words in mine. Just like any other "scientific" claim (which yours isn't, 'cause it's unfalsifiable, but okay) the burden of proof seems to be on you. You just refuse to give it, claiming it's "axiomatic" and thinking we lost our way by not agreeing with you.

 

That's preaching. Not only will it not benefit anything in this debate, it's also against our rules.

 

You too.

Perhaps you did not catch the discussion in the other thread. The reason that I wont discuss the proof is not because I will think you lost your way by not agreeing with me. It is because it would be an offense to God to prove his existence to everyone.

When I say I can prove God's existence, you are left to your imagination. You may imagine some Bible quotes, or some fossil thrown out as proof of God's existence. You are not likely to expect that the proof would be based on the premise shown. At least you now have an idea the proof started on a reasonable footing, with good intentions.

Proving God's existence was never the intention. It was a consequence.

Thanks

Seemingly, because it requires no further questions -- it's an absolute answer.

 

But I do agree with this notion that you're raising with the question. I never quite got this 'simplest answer' bit either -- saying "God" seems to raise a LOT more questions than any naturalistic answer, since it requires the relying on a LARGE number of unsubstantiated "non natural" answers. I would say that's the LEAST simple answer, but I don't have the "blind faith" that seems to be required to answer questions with the "God" answer without challenging it.

 

 

~mooey

Sorry, if I have not been able to help you in any way.

My intention was to allow challenge to the premise, not to explain the proof. I have said previously that I wont do that.

I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need.

Since no challenge has been raised on the premise, I see no need to discuss it further.

You are simply in a position of believing that proof of God's existence can be shown from the premise, or that I am making a false claim whether intentioned or not.

Good luck finding your way.

The existence of anything seems paradoxical.

Let us suppose that one thing exists. We ask ourselves how it came into being. This question appears to presuppose that nothing existed before the object since it is the only thing in existence, and without it nothing else exists. We suppose that the object was not made from something else that was destroyed to make it.

From this apparent position we must imagine something appearing suddenly out of nothing.

This seems paradoxical, improbable, and incomprehensible.

There is a solution to this apparent paradox. We may argue that something old was destroyed to make the thing we asked about but that starts an endless series of question about where the previous thing came from. At some point we argue there must have been a first thing that was made without destroying something older to do it. Where did that come from?

So, this approach fails to satisfy, because it does not really answer the question how you get something out of nothing. It just dodges the question.

Perhaps we can redefine the meaning of nothing.

Let us say that something has no fixed dimension and no fixed form, yet at any given instant it has form and dimension. Now let us say you have a whole lot of such things, and that their forms and dimensions intermingle destructively and constructively. Without periodic behaviour time passes but cannot be experienced. Only a series of instantaneous disconnected moments exists. Without consistent form or dimension, nothing has spacial existence. Circumstance do not evolve to new circumstances. Nothing holds form to exist and there is no experience of sequential time, and linear dimensional space.

So we have shifted the paradox to something else. A sort of existence without existence. This approach might be more acceptable if

we imagine some sort of governance for the transitional movement of such random geometry, for its motivational expression and responsive behaviour. The governance would have to prevent persistent form from arising and yet under very special circumstance allow persistent form to arise.

If we suppose that transitional geometric shapes might be partially shielded from disruption, and partially vulnerable to disruption, we might imagine a dimensionless lake of endlessly abortive form taking, where shapes step on each other to form preventing any shape from succeeding in forming. Eventually some exceedingly rare combination works to hold a persistent form of sufficiently high dimension and of such shape that it cannot be assailed from any side, and corrupted by any other surrounding geometry.

Here we suggest that physical existence is dependent on persistent geometry, which may form out of a paradoxical nothingness, a sea of varying and transitionally dimensioned and shaped indistinct non-persistent geometry. Persistence would depend on the expression of a rare unique stable geometric configuration.

What do you call something that has a paradoxical almost existence, of frustrated shape taking, where one expression steps on any other in the way?

I think it's called The Lake of Fire.

Ok lets see who wins

We have two accepted practices in physics. One is the application of Occam's Razor, and the other is the reduction of physical events and systems into mathematical models. We may take these two behaviors in physics and form a generalized logical premise for a TOE.

On sub-atomic and cosmic scales the simplest answer is the correct one, the simplest answer will be expressed purely in dynamic geometry, and the simplest answer must always consist of the simplest explanatory geometry, judged only by geometric complexity.

From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists. Of course you can always reject the premise, in which case the alternative ultimate explanation must lose comprehension, eloquence, and simplicity, if you can find one.

Other arguments about creationism, Noah, the Garden of Eden, etc..., based on tribal verbal traditions, are secondary.

The dicotomy between science and religion, is more along the lines, of geometric existence and spiritual existence. As such the real area of contention becomes sociology and religion, where sociologist may contend over moral issues, and social practices. Here we may see a disagreement between instituionalized religion and science.

Does God accept bribes, ransoms, indulgences and sacrifice of Jesus?

 

Eze 18 20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

 

Psa 49 7

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

 

Man has worked hard to try to put in place a system of justice where the guilty pay for their crimes/sin and the innocent go free. This actually seems to follow the scriptures above and if you are doing unto others what you would like done to you, then you will applaud our present legal forms.

 

God on the other hand, and those theists that want to ride their scapegoat Jesus as a sacrifice for their sins and not step up to their responsibilities, seem to prefer to have the innocent punished and let the guilty walk.

 

Scripture says that God cannot be bribed and will not accept a ransom of an innocent party to redeem another. Yet that is exactly what God is said to have done when he intentionally had his son murdered. Some call it a sacrifice. God wanting or needing a blood sacrifice also goes completely against scriptures but he and his followers don‘t seem to know that.

 

The other bribes or ransoms that God seems to accept are indulgences given by the church and were ironically what created the reformation movement and sects that now somehow embrace that immoral notion. Martin Luther must be spinning in his grave. I will grant that that practice is not as widespread as it once was, but to me, the idea that a man can sin against another man, and by just placing a few $$$ in a church strong box without even having to seek forgiveness from his victim, and expect with church guarantee a shorter stay in purgatory, is just too immoral for me.

 

All these bribes, ransoms and indulgences are for the forgiveness of sins.

 

His murder or sacrifice of his son is for the same reason and also has the innocent being punished while the guilty go free.

 

As the great law maker and executor of justice, do you think it moral for God to accept and demand such instead of making the guilty pay and letting the innocent live?

 

Secular law generally follows the bible’s idea of justice, in many cases, as shown in the verses above. Should secular law reverse itself and follow God’s ideas of justice instead in accepting bribes, ransoms and sacrifices of innocent men?

 

Regards

 

DL

People have propensities. It is the propensities of a person that show their true inner character or spirit if you will.

These propensities are your honest compulsions, and not self control over your compulsions. These propensities change over time as people have new experiences.

This can lead a sinner to repent and change his ways, having developed new and more righteous propensities.

However, if the spirit does not change in its propensities, no indulgence or bribe, or whatever you wish to call it, is going to appease God.

That's my take on it.

A very human centric point of view. You will judge everything based on how well it serves you calling it good and evil. God whom you claim defines good and evil, is declared evil by you, because he acted in a way that may have been brutal to some people. You will judge God. It's all about people, and what's in it for them.

 

You shouldn't have brought it up on the first place, then.

 

 

I didn't bring it up. I was asked to prove that God exists. You would like it, and feel smug I suppose, if I would quietly fold and say that I can't do that. but I can, axiomatically from first principles.

I am revealing nothing of the proof, only that there is one.

It matters little. You will never believe me. I am not beating any drum or trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to make a name for myself. You don`t even have any idea who I am. I am very comfortable. God has blessed me. It is a satisfying personal milestone, little more.

I presume all of these other posts were simply you're way of saying, "Even though I claim I can, I truly cannot prove that god exists."

 

I think we're probably done here. You have no intention whatsoever of doing anything other than making baseless claims and wild assertions.

No. Proving God's existance to you would be an offense to God. I said that.

You do not consider God in your proceedings. I do.

I can prove to you he exists, but it would offend him to do so. Get it?

Who here would stand against God, knowing him?

Would you stand against God?

How then could you ask me to do so?

I would rather serve God, than stand against him.

It's fundamental. God could reveal himself most convincingly to any and all at any time. Clearly he has chosen not to do so. Is it surprising then, that he would not want to be outed by some upstart?

As for being done here, we'll see, but as far as I am concerned, I was finished passing on any useful information some time ago.

I answered the OP, then I got asked to prove that God exists. Then I got dumped on for explaining that I could do that, but I wont.

Now, I am just confronting the insults.

If you do not believe in God, I could hardly expect you to believe me. Clearly that goes without saying. You are free to be as skeptical as you please. That's the idea isn't it?

Even if you believe in God, you have no call to believe me.

Like I care.

shrugs

you are able to prove god exists, and yet with each post you do little more than waffle around repeating yourself instead of simply doing it. I wonder why that is.

Even after I have explained why.

(shakes head)

 

Nobody has asked you to convert the masses.

If I prove to the OP here and now that God exists, I will then prove it to anyone who reads this thread. Each will be so astounded and moved that they will forward the proof to others. Then masses will be converted. You really need to reason things through.

 

No, actually I did not. I did not create this thread, so it was neither my OP nor my question.

 

You've basically just conceded that you cannot describe god in any useful way. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion. You're incapable of supporting your beliefs, and you hold them via illogical, irrational, and unreasonable special pleading.

 

Okay. Thanks for sharing.

Sorry, yes of course you did not start the thread, but the OP did request the justification for our belief in God. He did ask for proof for the existence of God and so changed the topic. I have conceded nothing. You just don`t like my pushing your metaphor.

Justification. That is a key point. Justify my beliefs to who?

I would say that I need only justify my beliefs to myself, not to you or anyone else. Consequently within the context of the discussion, I have no need to prove or describe anything to you or anyone else. My justification is personal and has nothing to do with you. Ask what it is I tell you. Ask me to prove it, and you are out of bounds. That is another question. I may be willing to answer the one question, but that does not mean I am willing to answer the other. Unwillingness does not equal inability.

One of the first things you realize when you come to terms with the existence of God is that you are not him. The position is taken, and he has his own ideas and plans.

Converting the masses is out of scope for me. I`m trying to stay in scope, and not offend God.

 

I wouldn't accept that as valid.

 

Of course.

What you really want is proof. You already said it.

I understand your position.

However, you did not ask for proof of the existence of God in your OP. You asked how we justify our belief in God.

Finding God is not like finding Santa Claus. You know what Santa Claus looks like and you know what you expect to find. Do you know what God looks like and what you expect to find? It's not like Where's Waldo.

Now you know how I justify my belief in God. Whether you accept it or not, that is my justification.

Good luck to you.

Your own words suggest otherwise, and despite your claims to accurately understand the non-belief position, what you type betrays your ignorance. When I said, "Everything you just said is wrong," it was in direct response to the below post you previously made:

 

 

 

 

So, given your response here:

 

 

 

It sure appears that you have zero concept of what it means to proselytize, or perhaps alternatively you are lying to both me and also yourself. You might alternatively call this evangelization, but even if that's the case the difference is so minimal as to be irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It's as if you're saying "because today is tuesday, bananas are yellow." Regardless of the central topic of the thread, it is absolutely possible that one's contribution to it can accurately be considered proselytizing.

 

 

 

Prove it. I dare ye. People have been trying and failing to do exactly that for millenia.

 

The "atheist point of view" is truly that there is at present no good reason to believe in god(s), nor in the abrahamic mythologies, since there is no evidence in its favor. I trust that it would be equally insulting to you if I said that "the problem with Ponderer's lack of belief in Thor and Apollo is that, although it seems very reasonable, it is wrong."

 

You apparently cannot fathom how silly you sound to someone who does not share your delusion, despite the fact that hold the exact same position I do for 99.99% of the world's other gods.

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever met a strawman argument which you didn't like?

 

 

 

Nope, no proselytization here. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

 

 

 

 

Uhuh. I'll perhaps be less dismissive when you stop spouting such unfounded nonsense as this.

 

 

I have no delusions. I know for a fact that God exists. Your problem is that you don't. What I am saying is well founded. I just haven't explained it to you. I told you I found God. You have heard many times that people have found religion, or that they found God, and you think this is what I mean. This is not what I mean. I have no intentions of further explaining to you or anyone else. You have to find God on your own.

To you I seem like a overly confident fool.

To me you seem like you have much to learn, but this is a lesson I may not teach you.

Evil bible says that Jesus spoke to them in parables lest they be healed. The NIV says that He spoke to them in parables because they have already hardened their hearts, to me meaning that they would choose not to understand if He spoke to them about heaven directly. I may be wrong, if I am, please explain it to me, I don't want any more than anyone else to follow a false religion.

 

 

Blind faith? Sort of, but not completely. Many sections of the Bible have been supported by archeology and written records. Also, many have been supported through science. (note: not the same as proving false or dealing with miracles.) How so? For instance, times such as when a baby is to be circumcised, how to wash your body after messing with dead people, closely approximate what science seems to recommend today. By history, things such as cities which have been discovered that were mentioned in the Bible. If you want more items, ask me, or better yet, google them or do some other research in sites that claim to support the Bible. Then check with sites that don't on the same things. My conclusion is that there is substantial evidence for the Bible.

Every person must find God in his own way. I will offer no proofs.

The best I can figure is that God wants us to have the freedom to display our inner character. He has given some basics rules and guidance, but does not want to encourage people who live by the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. The parables are a way of conveying spirit instead of rules.

We have a fundamental problem.

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

Jesus did not contend that the devil was lying about this and could not deliver, although it might be argued that this was not relevant.

It seems that given this premise, the leadership of all the kingdoms of the world has been given by God to the devil, and he has given this leadership to those he has chosen.

These are the ones who start wars, manipulate government, and screw employees and customers.

They would make their own rules to suit themselves and their ambitions. Any rules they do not like they want to strike down.

I found it interesting that Jesus came to earth because men lived by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

Most of these people see life as a game with a set of rules called laws and regulations. They do not want to see how their actions negatively affect others. They only seem to care about the rules and stretching the laws they do not like. They seem to feel that if they can get away with something, and not get punished, that everything is OK, because they did not break any rules or get caught. Always their objective is to advance themselves at the expense of others.

Good Christians need no laws or regulations to do the right thing. They do what is right because it comes from the heart and they have a good heart. They do not seek to advance themselves at the expense of others, but rather would give expecting nothing in return, and not just token charitable donations intended to bolster public image.

Rules are only to keep those who are not good at heart in line, not to define a game. Business and government are not games and can cause serious harm when conducted by such people.

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.

 

All you've shown is an incapability of understanding an alternative point of view and your desire to proselytize.

If what I conjectured about you is wrong then it would seem you are trolling.

If so, you caught something.

I understand the atheist point of view completely. I understand many things completely.

I don't proselytize. I have no calling from God to proselytize. I have been in a church perhaps a handful of times in the past twenty years, for weddings and funerals.

This is a discussion forum about religion, so surely discussions about the existence of God, in a thread about the existence of God, cannot be considered proselytizing.

Don't be so dismissive. I am giving you the goods, straight up. The problem with the atheist point of view is that although it all seems very reasonable, it is wrong. The atheist point of view is based on scientific theory and experience. The theory that explains everything has not been shown. For the scientific community, it is always a work in progress. This work cannot progress beyond a certain stage without belief in God, because the explanation ultimately will require God. Any explanation that seems to require God will be quickly dismissed out of hand, without closer examination. It is an impass. It is the ultimate barrier to further understanding. You must first accept that God exists, before you can access the greater scientific knowledge. The answer will never be found by atheist scientists.

Isn't this a bit like suggesting that the only reason I don't believe in magic or wizards is because I've hardened and calloused my heart against the Harry Potter novels and the Twilight series? The only thing against which I'm calloused is ignorance, nonsense, and the indoctrination which seems so pervasive in religious practice.

I would suggest that you want to believe in God, or you would not be on this forum posting. Your posts on this thread suggest it.

You want to believe because it makes sense, not because you are being told. You would like someone to make sense of it for you. The things that people who believe in God say, and the writings do not seem to make sense to you. Many of these people take it on faith, but still do not know what it is they see. The messages and rituals are confusing.

What part is expected of you? Why should you buy in?

When people say things that you cannot assimilate you become more entrenched.

You stand on an island of reason that is your understanding and way of holding your world together. You assume that your foundation is sound and that you have a good grasp. All else must grow from this seed and fit in with your world view.

You believe that when you have grown that seed to a full understanding of the world you will find that no God exists and you will have proof. All the signs point to this inevitable outcome.

However, you are wrong. When you have grown your seed, you will find that in the end, it has not matured and you are old and bitter, but if somehow you can succeed, when you finally understand the universe, you will find God is staring back at you, then you will see him everywhere. You will have your proof, but not the proof you expected. Then will your eyes be open. Are you up to the task, or should you reconsider your expectations now, and consider that you just don't get it?

You may seek to have a good day for yourself, or you may seek to be part of a good day for everyone and everything.

These are your choices.

I disagree completely. I cannot simply choose to believe something... and then I believe!... it just doesn't work that way. I can choose to pretend to believe (maybe in the hope that the belief will become (or at least seem) real later on).

 

I would guess that most people's belief stems from an upbringing that has hammered the idea into their head. Others may have some significant event happen in their lives that they attribute to a higher power's intervention.

 

Personally, I have some ideas... but BELIEF ?... no.

I found him. Really. I actually found him. Now, I see him all the time. I split a piece of wood and find him. I turn over a stone and find him. He is just everywhere. He is hard to miss.

Sure, I can give you one. A man at our church was diaganosed with cancer. They held an anointing service and when the doctors went in, no cancer. Ready for another? Our pastor (he wasn't our pastor then), was involved in a severe accident. After several weeks of recovery, he could still not lift more than 25 lbs. Again, the church held an anointing service. The next day, he could lift >100 lbs. You can choose to believe in an alternate explanation, but it seems likely to me that they were miracles. These are not the only examples of modern miracles in our <50 person church.

 

 

I picked a random one as an example, honest.

 

Here is what the NIV says for Matthew 13 10-15

 10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

 

 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

 

   “Though seeing, they do not see;

   though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

 

   14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

 

   “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

   you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;

   they hardly hear with their ears,

   and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

   hear with their ears,

   understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.

 

This says something quite different than what the evil bible quote seems to say. The NIV seems to indicate that the people won't understand because they have calloused, or in other words, hardened, their hearts.

Yes, it makes perfect sense. You look at something but you do not realize what it is that you are looking at. Your hearts become hardened because you do not realize what it is that you are looking at, all the time, and what you are a part of. Then you will not see.

Have a nice day or be part of nice day. Choose one.

I was zipping through the internet this morning and came across an item explaining the Science of God. Must have been dozens of headings, but this guy lays it on the line and makes sense. As an agnostic, I am caught up in a virtual conundrum. While I am a firm believer in science, the presenter scares hell out of me. And since he doesn't come across as a Jim Swaggart or Jim Baker bible thumping type fornicator, I tend to lean toward his reasoning. The man has principal, an education, and delivers a compelling presentation with conviction. Watch it, rationalize and think. How many scientists of today think as he does, but are reluctant to confess it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538#docid=-4065080646891971315

Interesting video. Some of the points seemed stimulating to consider. So, I had a look at both the english and hebrew genesis to see if the translation might be reconsidered, to find some sort of creation interpretation based on a brane type theory. I thought perhaps genesis might actually describe the creation of a spherical brane with a water like surface, and then the execution of some geometric creations in the brane.

It was a interesting exercise, but given the description that the earth and the plants are said to be created a "day" before the sun and the stars, and given that the "day" might be a few billion years long in his estimation, it is difficult to see how the plants could have survived and evolved without a sun in the sky. Plants could survive one regular day without a sun. That suggests that the author did not see a day as equivalent to a billion years or so. This also suggests an earth as the center of the universe mentality, with the sun and stars orbiting the earth. The sun and the stars are an afterthough, because that is how the author preceived them from a human perspective. God would have a different perspective me thinks, and so one is inclined to think that genesis was conceived and written by man, and not passed down from God.

If it was passed down from God, it would seem that one would have to conclude:

A: that God would have to be deliberately trying to deceive us

B: that God did not remember himself how he created the universe, recalled the best he could, and did not know about the greater universe until we learned ourselves and he was party to the learning.

C: The author got the days mixed up when taking dictation from God.

If you swap the two days and are very liberal with the translation, you can actually get a basic universe model out of it, but you have to be creative over and above what is described. It becomes jiggering genesis to fit a potential model. No credibility there as I see it. It would also be disrespectful of people's religious beliefs, and one must conclude that it follows disrespectful of God.

It seems that belief in the Bible means you have to take it as it is written.

 

People who regard others as insignificant amoebas are usually those who feel weak, dominated, cynical regarding goodness and creativity, and/or that power is inherently dangerous and corrupting. Those are the people that want to regard themselves and others as insignificant and small because they fear power and the responsibility that comes with it.

I would take issue with this. I would say that these people are the most significant thing in the universe to themselves, and everyone else is a niggar.

People who are kind and generous see themselves as less important and see themselves as part of a greater social-ecological structure to which they show a commitment above and beyond beyond their personal needs.

The corrupt need to see themselves as less important to fit in. All they are trying to do is get ahead, which by nature means leaving everyone else behind, by climbing over everyone else. Social graces become a disguise for underlying selfishness and self-important ego.