Easily done, Extropian1.

>>Pink-eyed Uxigrabes don't exist? Prove it!<<

Google says:

"Your search - Pink-eyed Uxigrabes - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords."

QED.

Extropian1, writes:

"Grateful writes; "If a scientist were able to "create a new, artificial disease", or an aspirin for that matter, they would have no need for science. They would just say "Be!" and there it would be."

I can make no sense of your assertion, except to draw the conclusion that you are repeating nonsense gained from someone you trust. Please explain what you mean, if you know."

Yes, the Qur'an (Surah 19, Mariam):

They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. (27) O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste." (28) So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?" (29) [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. (30) And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive (31) And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant. (32) And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive." (33) That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute. (34) It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (35) [Jesus said], "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path." (36)
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/19:26

The logic seems impeccable: "When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. "

Your thoughts?

Pericles writes, in reply to
>>Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.<<

the following:
<<I can certainly accept the first argument, since it forms the basis of many religions: do that which your God commands.

But you produce no evidence to support your second assertion. I know personally many, many individuals who accept that they have a level of responsibility to their communities, and choose "virtuous deeds" solely on that basis. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of us do likewise, in everything from careful disposal of garbage to acts of selfless philanthropy, both small and large.>>

Even if they do a "virtuous deed" because it is a "virtuous deed" it is still them doing what they are doing because it is what pleases THEM. Logically, when a someone is God-driven they are doing what they are doing because it pleases GOD.

So like i said: Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.

In reply to
"He will be just, for example, when justice serves his personal interests, but if it works against his personal interests then the rational man will not be just."

Pericles writes:
"Surely you must recognize that acts of justice are almost inevitably in one's personal interest."

The point is intention: when an act is performed is it intended to please God or ythe person?

As an aside: I wouldn't agree with your statement. It is certainly not the case: much injustice has been done which serves the personal interests of whole communities and nations (they get more land, cheaper more secure oil etc) . But like i said, this misses the point

Pericles, I'm somewhat surprised.

I would be prepared to re-examine my synthesis if you can produce a verifiable quote from a high profile scientist wherein he declares that Google is the ultimate authority on anything, that his work relies on the authority of Google for its legitimacy.

You are making an error by presuming scientific knowledge is complete and there is nothing more to discover. However unlikely it may seem to you, uttering something into existence is legitimate whether it be an uxigrabe or a god. Both have no scientific evidence of their existence, both are creations of human imagination and both share equal status in an infinite hierarchy of things that may be postulated to exist.

Perhaps you should Google up Bertrand Russel's orbiting teapot or Jim Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does Googling make them real, bestow legitimacy in either the scientific or religious realms, provoke inferential speculation and hypothesising in either realm? These,too, have a place in the infinite hierarchy of things imagined into existence by the human mind.

So, in the synthesis I have suggested why should gods be accorded special status? What property do they have that sets them apart from uxigrabes, orbiting teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, Spiderman,
hobbits, fairies, the Ancient Mariner, the Winged Serpent, the Bunyip, Satan, werewolves, talking snakes and dragons?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and as you well know arguments from popularity are groundless assertions for existence.

Sorry Grateful, you've lost me. I'm not going to argue with your idea of logic and nor will I be drawn into arguing with or about holy books and scripture. This is not the place.

Just let me ask you; have you ever uttered "Be!" and whatever you had in mind was given to you "miraculously" and apparently from nowhere?

Extropian1 writes:
<<On the basis that "God does not exist" is allied with the topic heading I offer a brief synthesis of why it is legitimate to hold such a conviction.

There is no reason to be convinced that the whole of existence is NOT comprised entirely and simply of matter, its alter-ego energy and the physical laws that govern them. This scenario is the ultimate expression of William of Ockham's Principal of Parsimony, a valuable rule of thumb in the scientific method.

There is no Law of Nature [or physics] that renders this conviction invalid.>>

If this were the case, then there would be no reason for Brantley to be grateful to the medical staff who treated him.

The fact that gratitude is warranted has nothing to do with medical science. Gratitude is warranted because the medical staff had the intention to use their resources and skills to save Brantley's life and this is why we say Brantley should be grateful.

The desire and intention to help could just have readily have existed 30,000 years ago as now. Fortunately for Brantley it existed in people who had the skills and equipment to act effectively on their intention.

This whole discussion is about intention, free will, and science is a secondary consideration. If medical science is to be thanked then it is because of the intentions of those who advanced this area to a point where Brantley could be cured. Its not because of the outcome of a medical procedure. Even if the doctors were unable to save Brantley's life, his family would no doubt have expressed gratitude for their efforts.

Gratitude is due precisely because human beings are more than products of an evolutionary process. Physically, we can be compelled to do a lot of things, but our inner experience is beyond compulsion. Spiritually, we have choice.

There is no compulsion in religion or art or morals.