mooeypoo

Did you even read what I wrote to you?

 

Seems a bit odd to post claims about the big bang (After we explained why that's irrelevant, same as 'evolution' or 'singularity', etc etc ad nauseum) and then quotes from Genesis (after we explained why that's not explaining anything in this context) if you read what I wrote. Did you?

 

Please try to go back and read my post, Mosheh. I took time to answer you for a reason. You're getting to the point where it's really not quite worth it if you're not interested in a discussion.

 

We're really not here to listen to you preach.

I probably could have written it better... My point was that assuming God used man to write the Bible means that God must exist (if God didn't exist then how could he have used man to write the Bible?), while assuming that man wrote the Bible on his own accord is not evidence that God does not exist, but merely evidence that He didn't use man to write the Bible.

I agree.

I could see how you might come to the above conclusion when my post is read out of context but I quoted the passage above it for a reason.

 

I saw what you quoted, but I think I might've misunderstood your point, then, because I am not sure why what I answered is out of context?

 

I apologize if it is..

I have gathered some evidence. Before I say it, you atheists really need to realize that you're dealing with something very big here. By the posts I've seen that it seems that you're not 99% (or more) sure that Christianity is false. It seems like 10, 20, or even 30% that Christianity is true. Is this true? The thing is that if you're wrong, you go to hell. I don't want to be mean, but you don't seem to realize how serious this is.

 

Evidence:

http://runnemederemembered.blogspot.ca/2009/04/doesnt-it-always-rain-on-good-friday.html

How many years does it take for an "odd coincidence" become a miracle?

 

Never, if it is explained scientifically, which even the christian church admits 99.99% of "miracles" are.

 

So, if that's the case, why define anythign at all as a miracle? Why not assume there is, somewhere, an explanation, and look for it, instead of settling for "it's a miracle" and forgoing any sort of explanation, until someone comes back with one by accident or by research?

 

That's not evidence.

 

~mooey

Who are you?

and are you able to discuss things that Mooeypoo refuses to do?

 

You.. are correct that what i wrote in 1994, is flawed... to be sure.

but luckily god... is not based on things I have written.

you cannot use my mistakes as an argument against a god.

 

The discussion... i attempted to have with mooeypoo.... was about evidence... evidence in the heavens... and how genesis... fits guite well.

 

I suggest you respond to that... if you are going to talk to me, as that, is what I would want to talk about.

The question is asked... what justification do I have for believing in a god.???

Well.. if you are not willing to discuss that... then why are you responding for mooeypoo?

 

Should I repeat myself... or can you scan back and read it yourself?

 

I showed evidence... of super clusters.., galaxies.. and stars... and related it to genesis.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

 

 

Mosheh,

 

It's very hard to know where to start answering your claims. One of the reasons is that we've been through the "claims" you raise about 10 times already (I asked that you look 'randomness' up in the forums for a reason), the second is that it is ... very... hard to.... read the.... sentence... when... you seem to.... ignore the... need.... to use.... complete and understandable.... sentences....

 

I know you think I'm mocking you. I really don't. You came to this forum and you're putting your claims, but you don't seem to want to cooperate on a proper argument. When I answered other claims of other people, you quoted me as if I answered your own, lashed out at me as if I am cursing you when all I asked is that you participate in the discussion in a manner that will actually allow us to answer you.

 

I've answered your claims about the randomness. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly when you seem to insist to stomping your feeet on the floor and repeat the claims.

 

Here's the crux of it (Which, with due respect Mosheh, you would have read already if you had the tiniest degree of respect to read this thread more fully) :

 

• Evidence for the existence of God that come FROM THE BIBLE are circular. You first need to prove the bible is correct before you use the bible to prove god's existence is correct.
  It seems that religion tries to claim the bible is correct because it's the word of God, and then show God exists because of what the bible says. Clearly, that's not good evidence.
• The problem with evil will not go away just by ignoring it.
• I don't need to prove god doesn't exist. You need to prove god exists; that's how science works -- when there si a claim there should be evidence and support for the claim. That's a very big distinction.
• Please do not argue about evolution (or what you *think* evolution is) in this thread, because
  • It's irrelevant. Even if evolution is false, it doesn't automatically means God is true.
  • It's confusing the argument of what we're trying to focus on in this thread.

 

And lastly, it seems to me that you are allowed to be passionate about your belief in god, but I am not allowed to be passionate in my disbelief. You attack me on answers that are polite (but blunt) -- we are not in a theology seminar, and you're not here to pass me through my bar mitzvah (Or bat mitzvah); We're discussing, and we need to remain civil on both ends.

 

If you think I was rude to you, use the "report" button; in this particular thread I am not a staff member, I"m just a debater like you, so *other* moderators will take a look at your reasons and complaints and will deal with it.

 

But it's very frustrating to start considering where I should begin answering a completely nonscientific collection of very hard to read half-sentences when you also add into it some nicely peppered personal attacks.

 

That's why I didn't bother answering the claims up until now. If you want to play, I can play, but let's both play nice.

 

Undermining your belief system by asking you tough questions is not being not-nice; it's part of this forum. If you don't like it, don't post in the religion forum. If you can handle it, then please get off the branch a bit and we can continue debating.

 

I don't want to assume anything, but I suspect from the name you use that you might have the ability to read the "old" testament in its original hebrew/aramaic language. That actually gives us equal footing, and I'd love to continue debating with you, but I really can't if I feel like every word I say will start a lash-fest.

 

Let me respect you, by you respecting me too. I think that's a fair request.

 

Yom tov,

 

Moriel

 

 

 

 

 

as such... it cannot be used to dis-prove god either.

 

and if you read... you will see... my belief is not based on the bible...

I respect the bible... because it is my view.. that Genesis... at least.. is very fitting to science and evidence... if you can get past your biases.

 

 

Genesis can be fitted into science if you try, but it's not automatically describing science. There are probems in the order of creation that contradict science.

 

For example, light was created before the sun. Of course, if God exists, this is easy to explain by saying that the concept of light was created first. Sure, why not.

 

Another example is that plants were created before the sun. Of course, plants need sun to survive, so that is a bit weird. Of course, that can be explained that if God exists, he kept the plants alive until the sun was created. Sure, why not.

 

the problem here, though, is that you need to "excuse" things in order for them to fit science. That happens in the bible a lot -- you seem to need to interpret the words slightly differently and use a loose definition of "symbolism" to make the bible fit science.

 

But even if the bible does fit science, here's something that always bothered me: It's all retroactive.

Doesn't that bother you?

 

I mean here that if 500 years ago, a theologian who studies the bible incredibly well (and perhaps one that is also appreciative to science, there are lots of those especially back then) would discover the theory of Quantum Mechanics because of the bible -- I would be impressed.

 

If 1000 years ago, the theory of electromagnetism would have been described and discovered scientifically *because* of the bible, well, then we'd be going somewhere.

 

But you claim that those truths exist in the bible, yet you claim that *after* the discovery was made by science. So either God is being so vague it's impossible for anyone to understand him (in which case, what's the use to even try?) or maybe, perhaps, we're just trying hard to reinterpret lines in the bible to fit discoveries that science makes independently.

 

One day a friend of mine and myself sat with Anna Karenina (which, I admit, I can't stand reading fully, but he has, twice, cover to cover) and he showed me how the book can be used to learn about quantum mechanics. It was surprising, but he did it, because when you try hard, you can find interpretation for anything.

He did it after-the-fact though. If someone would've discovered quantum mechanics just by reading and studying Anna Karenina, now, THEN you and I both would be impressed, wouldn't we?

 

There are many questions in physics that are still in need of an explanation. Scientists don't go to the bible to find the explanation, they work by the scientific method, research, and discover it independently of the question of God.

 

The fact theologians later go BACK to find mentions of these (interpreted, mind you) in the bible, is a separate issue.

 

And lastly, Mosheh, the final reason why the quotes you brought forth from genesis are not as impressive as you'd want us to think, is because they're vague. If even one of those quotes said "In the beginning, there was a rapid expansion of matter and energy, resulting in fluctuations in the quantum field taht will lead to the WMAP" (or any other phrasing for it) -- well, we'd have much less of an argument now, wouldn't we?

 

But it's vague, it can be interpreted many ways, and it's done after the fact. That's not proof. It might be a "cool thing to read" or an "interesting anecdode" but it's not evidence.

 

Now, please -- please -- answer my points as I've answered yours. Respectfully. The fact I challenge your belief and your scripture does not constitute disrespect, just like when you challenge mine it doesn't constitute disrespect.

 

We can have a civil debate.

 

~mooey

 

Either you have to agree that the Bible is from God and therefore proves that God exists or you have to disagree and therefore it proves nothing about whether God does or doesn't exist. Supposing relates to the individual that supposes. If God created humans then He exists whether or not you suppose.

 

Even if you agree that the bible is from God, that shouldn't be enough to constitute a PROOF of God. It can be enough to have a strong personal belief, but it's not *proof*.

 

Proof and evidence are definitions of science. If you don't want to go by the scientific method when judging your own belief that is perfectly fine, but I think our problem here is that many religious people insist that it IS scientific (and logical).

 

The only claim made here in this context is that it's not. The fair thing to do if one has circular belief (The bible comes from god therefore proves god) is to admit it's non scientific.

 

There's nothing wrong with having a strong belief despite of evidence. It's your right to have it.

 

~mooey

My beliefs are purely based on anecdotal evidences and I know such evidences are not accepted here and I am least bothered to call my beliefs as scientific or to convince others to believe in God. This forum is about questioning one's personal beliefs and am I not allowed even to do that?

 

Of course you're allowed, but this forum is also for others to quetion others' beliefs. We are also allowed to do that.

 

We apply Occam's razor in science but we don't apply his views while discussing God.

 

http://en.wikipedia....eside_the_razor

 

 

You don't, I do.

 

Occham's razor is a principle that was meant to help us judge competing theories about reality. If we pick and choose when to use it, we also pick and choose when to describe reality realistically and when to describe reality according to our own subjective fantasies.

 

God trumps logic (Law of opposites), reason and empiricism, it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method and to conclude things about him.

 

 

Why? And how do you expect me to join the belief if in order to believe I need to get rid of everything I know, and follow blindly without evidence?

 

I don't mean this question as a suggestion that you're trying to convince me, I'm just asking it as a sort of challenge to said belief (as in: I don't mean disrespect, but I also don't accept your reasoning, for the sake of debate).

 

Hope this makes things clearer...

 

~mooey

Listen mate no one speaks to me in that manner, you can Ether change you attitude to a gentlemanly fashion with some respect or I will pull that lot down myself and you can go to hell

 

We're being polite and very *very* patient.

 

You came to our forum, we did not solicit you or asked you out of the blue, you decided that you want to post here, and by doing that, you need to follow our rules. We are pointing out where your theory is lacking, and you're not being cooperative.

 

We're pointing out where you're disobeying our rules, and you need to be cooperative with that, otherwise this thread won't last long; we want you to stay, but you need to follow our rules. Fair, isn't it?

 

Now please read our rules and post your evidence. We won't be able to discuss science with you if you don't cooperate.

 

~mooey

The rainbow is generated as per my litmus test, further more the ones you see are only !% of the actual occurrences, which are in fact a continuum of trillions that have occurred over billions of years non stop, and at anyone time on the lite side of earth which has had a complete set of 60 or more, continually out front of earth, between us and the sun and that is the ionosphere and is what generates the ionosphere

 

 

You're making no sense.

Litmus test is a form of pH indicator... do you mean that type of litmus test, or the more "generalized" and metaphorical litmus test? This is confusing.

 

Also, please complete your sentences; I don't mean to be an a$$ but it's very unclear what you're talking about. What percentages of actual occurences? Of rainbows? a continuum of what? set of 60 or more what?

 

We can't really engage in a conversation we don't understand. Take a second to go over your sentnces and formulate them a bit better. I don't mean to be rude here, it's just very hard to answer or consider your points this way.

 

You see we have not been observant enough, unlike our ancient forebears, the Mayan called them red and white rainbow, while Horus the (ra) god called them red and white crowns, Quote To beautify that upper and the lower Nile , being the lands of Horus, or to make it rain , (sic) read the Rosetta stone,

Observant in what? Just look up after the rain and you get a rainbow. Why do we need to spot *every* rainbow that happens in order to understand how they work? We know how they work. We have evidence and we can even (shocker!) produce them ourselves very quickly outside of lab settings.

 

I don't understand what your point is.

 

Further more all rainbows are generated from the ground, and all begin there lives as white rainbow, and only when the cloud comes over and obstructs them do the become red, or you see a roygebiv, while the rest being 99% go all the way to the ionosphere, and interact building the ionosphere

That's complete and utter bunk. If you think otherwise, you need to give us actual evidence for this, and an explanation as to why our current physics explains things so perfectly is wrong, and your explanation is better.

 

Now I am very happy and confident that I can fully explain the full dynamics that, generate the rainbow and also the magnetic plumes they generate and also give you all the dimensions and full dynamic speeds and schematics for the total wave structure this includes, wave lengths frequencies and dwell and wave spacings and lux and fluxing dynamics that fits Albert Einsteins equation and a lot more, meaning this is where our gravity is generated, and also contains the fields of relativity, or the doorway to the forth dimension and I will also give you the factor for zero sum gravity , which I believe you call the scientific god particle

 

Seeing as it stands in direct contradiction to what we see and what we know, and in direct contradiction to the way you PRODUCE rainbows independently, I doubt you can.

 

But please, try. You have to supply evidence for all of this, though. We're a science forum, it's part of the expectations if you want to convince us to drop mainstream optics (that works!) with your version.

 

 

I also have the quantum atomic optics and full atomic distortion factors and crystallography for the Hydro H2o @ Atomic 6 that makes it all occur

Wordsalad.

 

 

And to further add the structure is a Hetodynamic Electromagnetic Hydro four element array and works like a cathode and anode with one side dynamic the othere is static the equation as best as I can make out for this is as follows

 

E=Mc2 10to16 TeV ,w,w,wz

= specific gravity==Higgs boson

 

or BOW-SUN

 

Wordsalad.

 

How does any of this relate to producing a rainbow? I just showed you how I make rainbows in my own kitchen without the need for any electrodynamic hydro-anything, with simple physics, repeatedly and without fail.

 

What you're saying seems to be proven wrong by the mere fact that I can go outside right now with just a bucket of water and make a rainbow.

 

Also, if rainbows are produced from the ground and not from the sun, please explain why there are no rainbows during the night (without a white light source).

 

~mooey

We're not saying stop believing. We're saying stop saying it's logical to believe, or expect us to follow suit, if there's no positive evidence (or if you can't supply any)

 

I have nothing against personal belief, but there seem to be this expectation that it's so obviously true, we all should believe, and without even a shred of positive evidence for the existence of God, I don't quite see how that's even remotely relevant.

 

And to be honest, I don't see the problem with you (immortal, and Mosheh) admitting that it's a personal belief regardless of logic. Why do you need to insist it fits science, or follows science at all, or seem to insist we should jump on the bandwagon and believe too?

 

I wish I could believe, but I am simply and quite honestly not convinced, and if you want to "solve it", you need to convince me.

This won't be solved by not giving me evidence, or trying to tell me my lack of belief is responsible for the suffering of the little children, or ignoring the problem of evil. So if you can't supply proof, what is the problem in just admitting it's a personal issue, regardless of "strict rationality"?

 

 

It's okay to have a personal belief despite (or regardless of) empirical evidence (or lack thereof). Just don't claim that's not the case.

 

Isn't that fair?

 

~mooey

Ho I see you have lined up a hole lot of my error there ,makes me feel right at home, but regardless, it dose not obfuscate the point I am making, that the scientific reference is in error and it dose not come from the sun into the clouds, directly, the rainbow is a driven element from the ground and then is projected up wards into and under the clouds, and the speed spectrum shows that is so,

 

Other wise the hole light show would have to be turned 90 degrees, to get the roygebiv speed spectrum into its correct spectrum of orientation, or, its not possible to have the light coming horizontal and then leaving it showing at 90 degrees to the logic

 

 

How is the scientific reference in error? We seem to have a clear explanation (with repeated observation, predictability) of how rainbows work and why.

 

 

Rainbows are created when light is refracted through a medium such as the water in the clouds, or the water in a fountain (you see those a lot too), or tinted windows, or quite a lot of other media.

 

Here, you should read this: http://science.howst...ms/rainbow1.htm

The fundamental process at work in a rainbow is refraction -- the "bending" of light. Light bends -- or more accurately, changes directions -- when it travels from one medium to another. This happens because light travels at different speeds in different mediums.

[...]

Drops of rainwater can refract and disperse light in the same basic way as a prism. In the right conditions, this refraction forms rainbows.

[...]

 

 

A prism separates white light into its component colors. For simplicity's sake, this diagram shows only red and violet, which are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[...]

In this way, each individual raindrop disperses white sunlight into its component colors. So why do we see wide bands of color, as if different rainy areas were dispersing a different single color? Because we only see one color from each raindrop. You can see how this works in the diagram below.

 

When raindrop A disperses light, only the red light exits at the correct angle to travel to the observer's eyes. The other colored beams exit at a lower angle, so the observer doesn't see them. The sunlight will hit all the surrounding raindrops in the same way, so they will all bounce red light onto the observer.

 

Raindrop B is much lower in the sky, so it doesn't bounce red light to the observer. At its height, the violet light exits at the correct angle to travel to the observer's eye. All the drops surrounding raindrop B bounce light in the same way. The raindrops in between A and B all bounce different colors of light to the observer, so the observer sees the full color spectrum. If you were up above the rain, you would see the rainbow as a full circle, because the light would bounce back from all around you. On the ground, we see the arc of the rainbow that is visible above the horizon.

 

 

 

What's wrong with the scientific explanation?

Strawman isn't an attack, it's a type of logical fallacy and it's against our rules. I was pointing it out to show yuo why I can't answer your claims. No one can.

 

 

So far you haven' really answered any of the questions, you just lashed out back at the points I'm making.

 

Do you have any actual claim to make in this thread, or are you just interested in soapboxing and preaching?

Justification for the belief in God.

 

Anyway, it's very hard to answer your post, you're attacking me for answers I've made to other people, with other claims.

 

This isn't the place to talk abot randomness. "Justifying" a belief in God is giving a positive evidence to why you think God exists, or giving a reasonable explanation. "Just because" is a decent explanation -- one I personally won't follow, but it works. However, explaining why another "belief" is wrong does not explain the justification YOU have for your belief in God.

 

Also, I was not wrong about the strawman. Scientists don't claim everything is random. Please take care to study what people claim before you present a false claim that's easier for you to counter.

 

~mooey

You can make a rainbow a lot easier, really, it's not all that revolutionary. All you need is light and a refractive material. Water.. piece of thick/curved glass... and you can capture it quite easily with a camera.

Here:


Rainbow on the office wall at BadAstronomy. I had one two days ago too in my kitchen.




I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve with this process...?

If you have data and you feel compelled to share it, share it.

Especially if your data tells you something completely contrary to everything we know about physics.

 

What does any of it have to do with rainbows, anyways?

Alright, so there's no real proof of the existence of God, it's just a personal preference.

 

You don't need to convince the "scientific community", I didn't ask for empirical peer-reviewed publication that was repeated successfully. At least I didn't ask for that just yet. I wanted to see if there's even a shred of proper logical evidence, which there seem to not be in your faith structure.

 

This isn't a bad thing, it's just insufficient to convince logically that God exists. All you really can say is that you believe God exists, and therefore God does, and that you take these oral traditions and scriptures and fit them to your belief system.

 

You are absolutely entitled to your personal choice.

We're also entitled to ours.

 

~mooey

 

The revealed truths are based on the conclusions from the oral traditions of Buddhists, Jews, Upanishads, Gnostics and various other individual mystics and traditions, I accept other oral traditions too, I'm not saying they are not true, the oral traditions imply the existence of other worlds and eventually leads to paganism but I'm interested in the supreme Godhead through which other Gods emanated from and he is the one who gives us the perfect knowledge as I said earlier that even other Gods are in ignorance too.

In order to go by all of them, or pieces of all of them, you need to pick and choose. When I asked what's the system you use to know which piece to pick and which not to, you had no answer on that either. It's not following the logic, then.

 

There is nothing special about my adherence to judo-christian belief its just the same pleroma of God which Jesus revealed to others which is very much identical to the pleroma of God as described in other oral traditions which interests me, to dismiss them as mere hallucinations and ramble about God based on logic and reason for a God who trumps logic, reason and empiricism as Dr. Genie said is not an intellectually honest thing to do.

How is that not an intellectually honest thing to do? There's zero evidence that any of those things ever happened, there's zero evidence that any of them *can* happen, and it's more likely that many of those so called 'miracles' were either passionate reiteration of a non-miraculous event or a hallucination. We know hallucinations exist, and we know that when traditions go from generation to the next they become bigger, exaggerated and miraculous -- so why not assume this is the case here too?

 

You might disagree with it, but you can't claim this is intellectually dishonest if you have not even a shred of logical evidence or explanation that follows to the conclusion that this was miraculous, and you presented none of that in this thread.

 

Be careful who you blame as intellectually dishonest, immortal, when your claims seem to involve picking and choosing pieces of scripture and myth and oral traditions without clear systematic method, redefining morality for god vs humans and not following your own claims to their logical conclusions.

 

Maybe you should go over the definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

 

~mooey

From the oral traditions and through revelations. For God good and evil as such doesn't exist. From such a perspective its not a problem at all.

I don't see how; God sends the israelites to rape women. Explicitly, he tells them to gather the virgins and use them as sex slaves. Either good and evil don't exist at all (in which case why be good in general?) or god is picking and choosing.

 

For god good and evil might not exist, but it does for us, and in *our* definition of good and evil, that's not good. Do you agree? Or is sending an army to explicitly rape the virgin women considered "moral" in your eyes?

 

I don't see how this argument works, immortal.

 

You don't seem to understand how religion works through faith and revelations and accesses revealed truths, empirical observations doesn't say anything about God, it sounds like preaching for the people in the other camp when you use the bible and say God is immoral, those are not evidence based facts, those are your personal interpretations and beliefs and when I use the oral traditions and argue based on the reasoning of revealed truths you condemn it.

 

You're not in a theology forum, though, you're in a religion subforum in a science forum, and this thread is about justification for the belief in God. It means you need to give evidence-based justification, or give up the argument.

 

If you believe in god without evidence, that's perfectly fine, I have no say about your personal belief. But the goal of this thread was to bring forth justifications, and in our forum, justification are following logical arguments and evidence. Evidence are not just observational, by the way, but they cannot be unsupported.

 

The problem with oral traditions is that you have to pick and choose which ones you follow, and they are not quite good evidence for the existence of God. They can be a guidance of what to do and how to act if you already believe in god's existence, but they prove nothing.

 

There are oral traditions in eurasia about Dragons, mystical gods (multiple) and rebirth, and some oral traditions that stand in complete contradiction to the judeochristian belief. If you go by oral traditions then these are true too. I assume you don't follow these teachings, though, so why not? clearly, there is more to your reasons of belief in god than just those oral traditions - which makes those oral traditions not evidence. Do you see what I mean?

 

Any further arguments are pointless.

In the context of a science forum, yes, I agree.

 

I don't preach back at you, immortal. I take the logic of the points you make and follow their logic to a conclusion. You seem to dislike the conclusion I reach, which is fine, but when you counter my points you're not using the same logical methodology, which is why this argument is, indeed, moot.

 

If you don't have evidence for your belief in God, that's okay. You just can't say you made your point in an evidence-based community.

 

 

~mooey

So you have no evidence.

 

 

 

 

We've been asking for positive evidence for the existence of God, and all you can give us is a dance around what science and physics discovered. That's not positive evidence for god, it is, at best, your way of "fitting" god to reality. Good for you.

 

Positive evidence is not evidence that makes you smile, it's evidence that SHOWS the existence of God. Anything other than that is not evidence, it's either dancing around the subject, evading the topic, or using mental gymnastics to fit God into science. I can explain all the above scientific explanation without a need to use God, so clearly they're not evidence for his existence. That's not evidence, and it is getting quite clear you don't seem to have any positive evidence to give us.

 

Okay then. To each their own.

 

~mooey

 

The Holy scriptures are not the only source of religious truths even the oral traditions are and they give us revealed truths, you used the holy scripture to show that God is immoral where as I used the oral traditions to show that he is morally perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. That doesn't mean there are contradictions in the Holy scriptures and the oral traditions its just the latter people interpret the scripture differently. If you're arguing from the Bible then you need to accept the revealed truths of oral traditions or say we don't know about God.

Okay, so where do you get your truth if not from the bible?

 

If the scripture is not the only source, what is your source for evidence? Do you even have any?

 

Also, it may not be the "only" source, but if it's a source at all, then you need to relate to the horrific actions God promotes. If it's a source at all, then according to this source, God's a murderous being that promotes rape. You don't see this as a problem at all?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really skipping all your other mental gymnastics here. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence for QM has nothing to do with this thread. If QM was "heavenly" or "godly" or *needed* God, we'd be having it through God's word, not through proper scientific research OUTSIDE of the realm of the spiritual.

 

You don't seem to understand what "evidence" is. That's fine. To each their own.

 

~mooey

ok.. evidence... for non- randomness...

We don't care about that, because we don't believe it was random.

 

This is called a strawman. It's not only a fallacy, it's counter productive to the argument. You're arguing against something we are *not* claiming.

 

This thread is about the justification for the existence of GOD. If you want to discuss evidence, it needs to be about the existence (or lack thereof) of GOD.

 

 

If you want to discuss the evidence of evolution, open a new thread in the Religion forum. I'm sure there will be buyers.

 

 

~mooey

 

Does the moon exists out there when we are not observing it? Does an Apple fall in the external physical world or does it fall only in our minds? These are the philosophical implications of quantum physics on which much of the debate between Einstein and Bohr resorted into. There is no need to bring out-of-body experiences into this argument. We cannot really say whether something exists independent of the mind, scientific realism is an assumption.

All of these are physical phenomena that were explained by physics, not by the bible. In fact, for thousands of years of belief in God, mankind was OBLIVIOUS to the explanation of why these happen until proper science emerged, incrementally, explaining them.

 

They are not evidence for God. If anything, they're evidence of why science works.

 

 

The fact we "can't really say" means only that we can't really say. It doesn't mean it's true. We can't really say that invisible pink unicorns exists either, but that's not a good reason to believe in them or worship them.

 

 

 

Try again.

 

 

http://www.guardian....um-entanglement

 

Not necessarily an external mind could create an reality in such a way that it is brain itself is the cause of such experiences and make us perceive it with in the world picture.

 

If your definition of "God" is "anything natural" then why should I even worship it? If that's what you use, then we only differ on definition. I call it "nature" and explain it scientifically, and you call it "god" and explain it scientifically (entanglement was not discovered by reading the scriptures, was it)

 

You claim that not only is there a God, but that there's a God that we should worship, a God that answers prayer and has a plan.

You need to bring evidence for that kind of God.

I put up a list of evidence from the scripture about how God is merciless and promotes horrific behavior. You have skipped explaining this issue. That's not just a problem of god "letting us" make mistakes, those are examples of God ordering people to murder and rape. If rape is immoral, and God orders rape, then god is immoral. Unless, of course, you disagree that rape is immoral. Or, of course, you disagree that god is moral. Or you disagree that the scripture is true?

 

Stop dismissing this issue. It's a big one.

 

And please stop beating around the bush. This thread demands a positive evidence for the existence fo God. It's "what is your justification for believing", and you need to bring evidence for God's existence, not of the other claim's "falseness".

 

Even if you prove the other claim false, that doesn't mean the only alternative is "God". You need to bring evidence God exists, or you will not be convincing anyone.

 

Please relate to my claims directly from the scripture. I posted a list, and then a link with quite a large number of orders by God and from God about murdering children, raping women, and other lovely atrocities. From the scripture that's supposedly God's word.

 

~mooey

Let's stick to the topic of God and why we believe or not believe in him/her/it/they/that.

 

Now, Mosheh, look, friend, you're making really bad arguments here, and it's rather hard to figure out where to start.

 

For one, lket me give you an example:

The question of god.. cannot ever be answered... but we can discuss the evidence.. and nothing has every suggested that the universe is chaos and random formation..

 

Great, you want to discuss the evidence for the question of god, but instead you go for evidence of "randomness".

• First, randomness has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of god.
• Second, no matter how many rabbis told you this, scientists actually *don't* believe "everything is random"
• Third, there might be more than just the two options of "either god exists" or "it's all random", which makes your switch a fallacy we call "false dichotomy".

It's hard to start debating when the starting grounds are so slanted. We can try and take things step by step, but you need to be more focused. If you want to debate evolution (<sigh> again) fine, there are about a billion threads about it. Go read some. If you want to continue debating about why we should or shouldn't believe in god, then please concentrate on that issue.

 

And please bring evidence. "Proving" someone is wrong does not make you right, so even if you "prove" that there's no randomness in the world, it would still not prove god exists. Start bringing *positive* evidence.

 

We're a science forum, not a theology blog. Don't rant, don't preach, and don't push your personal blog. Please.

 

 

Also, if you don't mind, sentences contain a verb and end with a single dot, most often. It's rather hard to read your semi-broken trails of thought that are full of broken sentences. Make your point eloquently, you showed you can through your other posts. Take a second to edit yourself if you must, but really, it's hard to read you like this.

 

 

Post claims, read the counter claims, debate nicely. It's much more fun and enlightening this way, I promise.

 

~mooey

U do realize that this tachycardia increases your risk of MI. Don't you?

 

You do realize it's not tachycardia.

 

... you're just trolling now, aren't you?

Thanks for further proving to others that the society-of-humans stinks badlier than the kakaa-of-humans. This stench grew oppressive ever since humans formed a society separate from their non-human ancestors.

 

Getting OT but has N E 1 [other than me] noticed that human kakaa stinks the badliest of all kakaa? Even tiger kakaa is roses compared to that of humans [i don't know this for a fact but I could easily guess correctly]. In addition, a poorly-hygienic-human will smell worse than a non-human animal with equally-poor -- or perhaps ever poorer -- hygiene.

 

Actually, you seem to be doing quite a good job of it yourself. Your insistence that society acts the way you THINK it acts, regardless of evidence or counter claims shows exactly who's who.

 

That said, I really do suggest that you drop the personal insults. If you can't argue anymore and that's the only resort you have, you may find yourself at the other side of the sealed door to this forum.

 

As you can see, we want to debate. There are certain issues we will not entertain you on, though, and civility is one of them.

 

Funny, seeing as you are the one who proposed it to begin with, but I stopped trying to find consistency in your threads.

 

~mooey

 

It's impossible, that is why I call it a "fantasy".

 

Angels descend from paradise and control those physiological-functions [in humans only] so that people are unable to do or say unfair things.

 

As a result, malicious-minded humans are extremely-bored and very-upset -- simply because they want to be evil but can't.

 

Wouldn't it be a miracle, if a villain wants to cause harm but is unable to? That's the most interesting form of punishment for such a bully. This would cause massive psychological trauma to the evil person, without physically-harming him/her to any extent. I'm totally for it but then a lot of what I want is impossible.

 

A "physiological response to a psychological state" is a "physiological response to a psychological state" -- regardless of whether is it voluntary or reflexive.

 

Those physiological responses aer what makes us human. They give us passion, conviction and the urge to go on. We should control them so we're not destructive, but I don't *want* to have my heart not pump faster when I'm angry or passionate about something. I don't *want* to not get the adrenaline rush when I hear of something I deem as unjust. I want to have those, because those make me who I am.

 

Whether you like it or not, they make you who you are too.

 

 

But even if that's not true, the fact we can't change it even if we want to (as you say, 'angels' don't exist) means this whole point of this whole thread is absolutely positively moot.

 

Did you start it just to rant, or is there a point to all of this? Or is it just your way of avoiding the points made in your original threads, the ones that crushed your non-evidenced claims to begin with?

 

You'd think we wouldn't notice.

 

~mooey

So there's no current good deeds? Lots of bad ones, or at least ones that remain "untreated"... nothing good?

 

All tht we know of God's "goodness" is *only* in the bible and "new" testament? that's it?

That is not a proven event.

 

How about from our recent times? Or is god only "good" in the bible, if you ignore anything else.

Examples, immortal, examples.

 

I gave you examples of where God's being a real evil schmuck. Give us counter EXAMPLES of where he's an amazing awesome wonderous wonderfulness.

 

Examples.

Those are the good works of God for he knows that such calamities are necessary and important for the stability of the world and it is his same good work through which he sends religious missionaries and medicines to care for the suffering of his children. He loves them and wants to give his perfect knowledge even though they didn't abide in his words. In what way he is malevolent.

 

Like what? What are the good works of god?