It's funny that whenever I talk with a Christian, they quote the bible to back up their point. Being an atheist this is like quoting Tolkein or Jordan to prove that magic exists. Being a scientist I wonder if anyone out there can give a convincing argument in support of the existence of god. Please no talk about faith (this runs counter to empiricism and truth)and no bible quotes. Remember Occazam's razor "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

Puss.....E...mpErical?

*goes to Google on line dictionary*

*types in "EMPERICAL"..*

*Google says "nating..nada..nyet... would you like to try "EMPIRICAL"

AAH.. now I think I know what the cat is on about.

Well the first "empirical" result is the knowledge that you (a scientist?) cannot spell :)

Ok..teasing aside.. I sometimes make spelling mitsakes also 0_^.. but in your TITLE? hmmmm

Now.. see where your challenge results when you ban bible quotes and 'faith' ?

But let's try something different, and ask "do YOU have 'faith' in various things?"

Sure u do, you have faith in the engineering principles which undergird the design (and construction) of every lift you go in. You don't 'see' all that went on to make it, but you still trust/have faith in it.

Likewise, you probably accept (by faith) that Captain Cook had a fair bit to do with the settlement of Australia by Europeans. but your faith/belief in that historical event is based on...'documentary evidence'.

Now..being the good scientist that you are, you will appreciate that 'evidence' can be of various forms. There is 'empirical' as your title suggests, ..where you can (like in my case) put together some assembler code that is meant to turn things on, or off at certain times, and coordinate various electro-mechanical events in such a way as to make some physical object 'do' something.. like turn, or stop turning.

But you ALSO know very well that all of history is based on documentary evidence, and archeological discovery.
You ALSO know that some countries hang/lethally inject execute people based on.. "testimony" of others.

So, without going any further, unless we can agree that 'personal testimony/eye witness accounts' constitutes 'valid evidence' for something which happened, there is little point to this discussion.

Hence this is the end of my post.
blessings.

Good morning people. Now I have put forward a debate that no-one can argue with and whether you like it or not David, Evolution is the winner! You feel up lifted with your experiences of Jesus, and you think that was grand, wait until you throw this religious monkey off one's back and feel the real freedom that no god exists. (Its fear religion is imposing) That my friend is more spiritual than anything you have ever experienced! Its the next level.( its really a battle with one's own mind) I fear no god and my life runs beautifully, and the love in my heart and the respect that I have for all living things never ends. ( your born with it ) The law and order that the bible helped mankind with "mate" we got it, OK! Its time to move on and become gods of ourselves.

Being the frightened hamster of the all-mighty zoo keeper, restricts mankind's development in such a way, its cruel in its own right.

anyone who believed we got here by chance is so blinded they are bound to swallow evolution crap in the name of science.

Looks like we could have a catfight on our hands here, because this feline sees right through the hypocrisy of those who deny intelligent design, yet FAITHfully embrace THEORY as scientific fact in the most important scientific debate of all. Curiously I believe intelligent design and Evolution theory have a huge overlap of agreement - there aren't many people I know who disagree with survival of the fittest - it is observable and obvious. But in a display of widespread child abuse, this common truth is used to con schoolkids across the country into believing the "magical" part of evolution - that somehow the ever-improving organism can transform into an entirely different species!

Never mind though, this cat can sit around and wait for some common sense and reason to prevail in this debate - intelligent design is readily apparent all around us - you just need to OBSERVE. Perhaps if I wait long enough, this cat might turn into a sea sponge, or a orangutan, or a giraffe? No - that can't happen because that aspect of evolution is a complete nonsense.

Cat, isn't this just like asking for theological support for a scientific theory? If there was empirical evidence, we would stop calling it/him God.

Good question thecat, but as can be seen from the replies thus far, you're unlikely to get a straight answer.

Mind you, it's quite amusing to see Boazy taking someone else to task for a spelling mistake. This constituted about a third of his reply, the rest of which is compromised of dissembling designed to avoid answering the question.

Expect plenty more obfuscation and changing of the subject, but don't hold your breath waiting for empirical evidence of god/s. As freediver points out, there isn't any - by definition.

thecat, Sorry to disappoint you but "Faith" is what is left when you ignore the bible and turn your back on the dogma and mantra of the religiously inclined (as I have done).

It comes back to the big question - what created the "big bang" and what existed before it.

i find it too hard to believe it all just "happened", to believe that I would have to have an undying faith in the power of coincidence or fatalism and I would go seriously nuts if I based my existence on it all happening by accident (coincidence) or we were on some preordained path (fatalism).

All I have left is faith, a belief that some indifferent authority, which does not care about either the suffering or delight of any of us, brought the universe into existence.

It is a default view. Take it or leave it. I offer it as that, no apology and no encouragement.

You have the freewill to choose "what" for yourself, it will not effect me.

I will still observe, Mozart was an inspired genius and that genius came from somewhere.

Boaz_David is spot on.
You cannot reject the testimony of others...the eye witness account.
Its simply too vital in any issue.
As a young policeman (see my thread "My years as a young cop" for an interesting story) I would go to a scene of a crime or an accident and there would be witnesses.
I would get my notebook out and write down what they said about what they saw and heard.
This I would later take back to the station and type up; and if necessary the event would later go to a court and the Magistrate would listen to what I had written down... and even personally interview the witnesses in the box.
It was taken as eye witness testimony of the event. The truth of the event was exposed and pronounced as truth.
Out of this testimony came court decisions that change lives.
People got set free, others got fines, some went to prison.
This too is what the christians do when they speak of their personal eyewitness experience of what they were like before they came to Jesus...and what the event of the "born again experience" was like at that precise point of being touched by The Holy Spirit as He entered their lives when they confessed their sin and invited Jesus Christ in.
And theres millions of us.
And theres been millions of us with that same testimony about God, Christ and The Holy Spirit.
And we are all giving testimony to the existance of God through our eyewitness accounts.
We are the living testimony of God being The Creator and of the Holy Bible being the truth.
And we are not a cult.
We are millions of people from all nations and tribes ...all with the same "born again christian experience".
That miraculous instant in our lives when we changed forever when God Revealed Himself to us and came to live inside us by His Spirit.

Hello there... You might care to take a peek at Five Questions for Theists posts:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1804

I'm locked out for comment for the time being. One question addresses the "explanation" for a god existence. This a slightly different question to "Does god exist?"; and, is developed from Dawkins' observation that any entity being god must be very complex? How would it become that way? “How does God Exist?” [Sells]

Moreover, with infinite regress, why is it any less apt maintain that universes are manifestations drawn into existence from infinite indeterminacy, as in quantum mechanics; than to just say, "god"? With QM it migt be possible to draw some sort of model, as with n-manifolds and hypercube. "Explanations", in other words.

With thesists, I have found "faith" and "its not for us to know" to be common perspects, sincerely held. Also, allusions to the Intelligent Design derived the complexity of the universe, i.e., it just couldn't be happenstance, its too astonishing to have occurred without a supernatural architect.

I also think that; creation, god(s), Jesus, Zeus et al., shamanism, priesthood, and churches are separate constructs, to be independently defined. Before using any terms, one should tighten the terminology, to ensure each scale/construct displays internal consistency.

I guess the Shroud of Turin alluded to being empirical evidence but proved to be a middle-ages fake. The sun allegedly falling at Lourdes? Thousands of people are said to have witnessed the claimed phenomenon, yet that "mass experience" style of event has also occurred with UFO sighting?

Many of the arguments presented by the theists communities, start with "their" god. I in the Anglo-West world, Jesus, and, in other cultures a different god or gods: e.g., Amun-Re. Methodologically, I find it problematic to commence with an untested "a priori" proposition. The theists' approach jumps steps.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one,
i will let slide the fact your post is much like laying down and saying lets wrestle.

I clearly dont need to waste words on describing god , as it is sure you will be unlikely to be seeing god anyway ,[by rejecting his egsistance it becomes even scientificlly impossable]

it would be helpfull for you to describe what branch of science you specialise in [noting there are valid sciences and theories of science][and that to many non-science types there isnt any difference ,but they persist in quoting them all as verified true sciences.

Equallly had science evolved its own cell [or even a cell membrane of its own construction or design]
or had even one had but one currently living intermediate 'evolution' been tested scientificlly and fully able to be replicated ; in creating the non god evolution theory ...
[not plaster casts of dead fossilised stone] ,...then science fact could have underpinned the 'theory' of evolution, with replicatable science fact not athiest hopes and theories [fears]

multiple fruitfly experiments have yet to produce a non fruit-fly ,it all points to genomic stasis

But here is the kicker if im wrong and i die im wrong but dead no opne to say i told you so
[but if we are right you have eternity knowing in your brief gift of life you couldnt see how amasing god's creation was
[and worse your surity in believing science theory over god creation convinced many ignorant fools to become athiests ,
allowing them to reject knowing the living loving god of mercy [for nothing but decieved fools unproven theory's]

[sure god will forgive you [but then you have to forgive yourself, that takes up eternity]

I believe that Roger Penrose has tried to develop a model of Phase Space before planck, it is speculative, that’s ok, but at least it is a try. Similarly, in the histographic literature relating to Jesus, there is some speculative modelling: the Quelle document and Thiering's Pesher. Both are forms of interpretations. The observations drawn would satisfy historians a tentative hypothesis but would not satisfy Christian theists.

I think you and I would like to see theists provide a conceptual model of god. I had to one for my PhD, which deals with quantifying [structural equation] abstract cultural axioms developed from scales: When one deals this influence of culture on knowledge discovery mathematically, it is transmuting from the abstract to concrete, where it is okay to be incomplete.

To be more credible, theists, I suggest, need to drop the "a priori" stance and build a tentative model of god, as an architectural form not descriptive form, such as "god is love".

I am not anti-religion. I am non-religious, because the evidence presented by the theists is inadequate to make substantive claims.

Col,

"It comes back to the big question - what created the "big bang" and what existed before it." - Col

At the instant of the Big Bang, a high energy state in-which 3-D space and time were bundled existed. Immediately, before the Big Bang a briging period of a minus to forty-third power of a second [Planck] is disunity hypothisised, to eminate from the singuluarity of phase-space [Penrose]:

It is a model strongly verifiable back to 300,000 years after the "Big Bang" and indicatively verifiable to Planck time. There are several models between singuality and Plank time: It is work in progess.

Hi Boazy, I believe the high feasibility of Cook and Bligh.If is possible to recover their bodies DNA tests could be perfermed, as with claims to the Family Romaninov.

Cheers all.

I made a typo in my last comment - where I said "compromised" I meant to say "comprised". Apologies.

Some Questions for the anti Theists :)

1/ If a fish dies in water, what happens to it's body? up....or down?
2/ If it goes 'up'.... what then happens to it?
3/ How can a 'fossil' occur to a fish, which goes *your answer* rather than *your answer*....

4/ Is it more likely that a cataclysmic event of sudden nature, caused animals to be trapped in 'soil/matter/lava/etc' ?

5/ Can any anti-Theist explain why a 14century Cathedral has drawings in it which depict dinasaurs? (prior to any knowledge of them?)

6/ Can any anti Theist explain why an inscription in a Cambodian temple has a clear picture of a Stegasaurus? (which died out supposedly millenia ago)
The hilarious thing about the AntiTheist 'mocking' of this, is that they
a)Mock the lack of detail in the inscription...
b)Then offer an alternative which WREAKS of the very same problem, but far more pronounced :)

7/ Can any Anti Theist tell us who is the foremost molecular biologist in Australia? and what he believes about Creation?

Have fun :)

"With QM [sic. In Cosmology] it migt be possible to draw some sort of model, as with n-manifolds and hypercube. 'Explanations', in other words."

QM has different mathematical schema to the mathematical entities mentioned. Sorry, George, if you are reading [how you had a good time with your daughter]. But s is still incumbent to unify.

My point was we can build models in science, and, mathematical models cam be a[[lied culural-anthropolists to make axioms concrete. Theists should present a model. Also, Please not my mini-research post on Faith, to be posted, once the time barrier is lifted.

Peace and a good life to all.

thecat: Prove God’s existence?

An all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent God does not need me or Gibo or BD or runner to prove his existence. We are mere servants. Anything we say looks like “smoke and mirrors” compared to the miracle of conversion.

God proves his own existence, so don’t be lazy and expect us to do your work for you: go ask him yourself. We couldn’t convince you even if we really, really tried hard (with probability formulas, “missing links” or any discretionary evidence such as “word of mouth”). That’s as it is. If I had the power to convince you of God’s existence, than I would dangerously hold the power to convince you of his non-existence. I would be God. God convicts us of his existence, not the other way around.

A Little Hint: asking God is what we servants call “praying”. God’s answers are found in what we call “the bible”. So, knowing where the truth is found, we can only (and do when given the opportunity), point to the source.

Another Little Hint: there are some preconditions. Firstly, a genuine heart for knowledge, followed closely with humility. You cannot approach the throne except on bended knee. A "road to Damascus" kind of convincing comes with a very high price. As I said above, work at it a little.

However, perhaps you could rise to my counterchallenge and prove your own existence. Eyewitness accounts, DNA samples, photographic samples, touching you with my own hand… these won’t do it for me either as I don’t want to merely perceive your existence through my senses or be convinced through argument or debate.

If you do ever find a way to prove your own existence, other than say proving it more probable that you exist than a two-headed dinosaur, I look forward to hearing how you would prove your existence if YOU were God.

Gibo: The shared “born again” experience, beyond cool (and beyond belief, unfortunately). But I know, I know.

Love,

themouse

Good Evening Dear Cat,

Can I prove the existence of God - scientifically?

I'll give it a shot:

* Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that's in it. (The alternative theory is that "nothing" exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)

* Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)

* Design. God provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design).

* Encoded Instructions. God provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)

* Irreducible Complexity. God provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsytems that couldn't come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)

* Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism - only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)

* Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)

CONT'D

"Does God Exist?" Is this really a question for science at all?

Actually, ti seems this is a matter of forensic science, since we can't re-create the birth of the universe or the formation of first life in a laboratory. Therefore, we collect the observable evidence in our world and apply our forensic investigation skills to analyse its collective meaning. In the end, we all need to collect and examine the evidence for ourselves.

Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith, it's not a matter for the laboratory.

It's a personal, investigative decision for each and every one of us.

great answer Foxy

Foxy,

God as the default option....?

So if you believe that God is the most feasible answer to all of life's big questions, how do you (personally) respond to that?

"evolution - that somehow the ever-improving organism can transform into an entirely different species!" - cybacaT

No. An ever-adapting species responding to changes in the ecology.

The chains-of-evidence are DNA and the fossil record that can be traced back from the land, to the sea at large, to the sea floor, to the biosphere under the sea. Significant factors being Carbon & Oxygen and in the Cambrian Period the development of shells, amphibians, spins, cold blooded land animals, warm blooded animals [meteor stike], mammals [land & sea], us:
[Not only because are intelligent: We belief we are control of the ecology. We might win battles against rain forrests etc., but we we loose a war against the Nature of the Planet, if we don't adapt.

Hope the Dolphins survive :-).

If I ever get the chance to meet the all mighty zoo keeper, not only am I going to give him a forehead slap, but Iam going ask him to leave better instructions.

God! You'd better have a bloody good explanation for all this.

I give up! Smile.

EVO

Of course God exists Cat surely evidenced by his many minions doing their best to convince you of the fact, not only in this thread but in the non-cyber world. I don't mean just the witnesses knocking down your door but the edifices of worship in every community.

God exists like romantic love exists. I know that there was a hell of a lot of hormones responsible for Romeo and Juliet wanting to get it on but wrap it all up in a love story and it is glorious. And isn't that what God is? A glorious love story. We might not feel it but others do and just as most of us are reluctant to come between star crossed lovers (unless you are the girls father) do we need to be getting in the way of people's love of a God? People need a way to cope with this awareness thing nature has lumped us with (particularly of personal mortality) and a God notion is a pretty spectacular way of doing it, it seems to work pretty well for so many.

So if you want to trash God for people you logically (or scientifically if you like) need to be prepared to forego romantic love. Willing to make the sacrifice? If you are not then can I please have the empirical evidence for romantic love?

The fun in these threads is not finding out anything new, but to see how far the godbotherers are prepared to stretch reason in order to get their point across.

>>God exists like romantic love exists... So if you want to trash God for people you logically (or scientifically if you like) need to be prepared to forego romantic love<<

Cute.

Take one abstract concept, put it alongside another abstract concept, and say "if you can believe in one abstract concept you must believe in all abstract concepts; if you disbelieve one, then you must of necessity disbelieve them all."

I'm absolutely sure that csteele believes that the two - God and romantic love - are connected. But to anyone not blinded by the romanticism of religion, the two have no logical association whatsoever.

The author does not even have the courtesy to justify the connection they so blithely establish. We are apparently supposed to say "ah, yes, of course", once again proving that in order to believe in God it is important not to engage any brain cells.

The triumphal challenge at the end...

>>Willing to make the sacrifice? If you are not then can I please have the empirical evidence for romantic love?<<

... is therefore no more than self-deluded bluster.

Fair enough BOAZ_David you got me I misspelt empirical. So I suppose you made a single valid point.
This discussion was purposefully written to get passionate responses.
One under god Biotechnology is the branch I studied I don’t see why this is helpful though

How do we know man-made Global Warming exists? Because a consensus of those most involved in the issue (climate scientists) believe it exists.

How do we know God exists? Because a consensus of those most involved in the issue believe it exists.

I would like to ask all these convinced and devout posters if they think their god is an interventionist one, and how do they reconcile "their god" with all the others that people believe exist and who adamantly have faith in.

Hey Pericles,

Thats a pretty heavy slapping for my playful tweak at a cats tail but what part of "We might not feel it but others do" didn't you understand? However I see how my opening remark "Of course God exists" might have confused you a little.

But all I was trying to do was do, through some admittedly weak satire, was show that yes God and romantic love may well be human constructs but they both can be experienced quite viscerally and contribute to the rich juices of life. And I'm all for letting life rip.

Your spats with Boaz and others would seem to indicate that religion for you might not have been the life affirming experience that some people have found it to be. Thats cool, it isn't for me either. But a lack of logic or the rational isn't confined just to the lovestruck or godstruck, and the label 'God botherer' can almost as easily be applied to those who bother others about their Gods.

So permit me to take my tongue out of my cheek and blow you a raspberry instead.

Oliver “At the instant of the Big Bang, a high energy state in-which 3-D space and time were bundled existed. Immediately, before the Big Bang a briging period of a minus to forty-third power of a second [Planck] is disunity hypothisised, to eminate from the singuluarity of phase-space [Penrose]:

It is a model strongly verifiable back to 300,000 years after the "Big Bang" and indicatively verifiable to Planck time. There are several models between singuality and Plank time: It is work in progess.”

But do you have an eye witness account or is that just someone’s theory, like AGW?

When you can produce evidence of that happening, I will listen, until then, I will cruise along with “faith in God” and no faith in theology (which is merely a corrupted form of mass hysteria encouraged by those with a vested interest in social manipulation and regulated control).

CoL. "social manipulation and regulated control". that's rich coming from the religious community and brainless hypocrites, plus self appointing, self invested, and greedy underhanded, "socially destructive morons"( look at what religion is doing around the world). You cant even understand the mountains of evidence that myself and others have brought to you.(everyone). OK that's my dummy spit for the afternoon. (Nothing personal COL.)

On the other hand there are serious risks in unraveling the biggest mystery of all mankind. The pros and cons have serious consequences and I'll give you the credit if you know that I'm talking about.
Mankind is still sucking it's religious dummy and to take this pacifier out to early will have disastrous consequences. But have no doubt in this next sentence.
Mankind will eventually evolve and grow out of this ridiculous stage of the times.
The full report is in my posts history. So pull all the relevant comments together then fill in the gaps.

It's not a bad, well, call it what ever you like.

All the best>

EVO

Oooops, sorry csteele!

I misread your gentle satire as yet another one of those mindless warbles that I dislike so much.

Guilty of too-rapid response - a premature expostulation, in fact.

Yours, red faced

Pericles

Dear katieO,

How do I personally respond to God?

I've answered that question so many times in other threads, so I'll simply say:

Faith has passed from the passive and complete acceptance of a body of truths to the honest search for total commitment. The world has become man-centered, meaning-centered, and the individual measures the traditional truths in terms of personal value.

I refuse to accept irrelevant sermons, a sterile liturgy, a passe and speculative theology which explores publicly dry and distant formulas, a law which does not explain its own origins. I demand a pastor who reaches me in honest dialogue. I will not be bullied by an authoritarian demand for the observance of parish boundaries, nor by moralizing which ignores the true and complex context of modern life.

I do not fear hell because I cannot fathom it. I do not seek heaven because it offers no image I can grasp.

I struggle to find myself, to love my fellow human beings, and to hope that in this way I am truly loving God.

I don't know if that answers your question. But there it is.

Snake asks
'I would like to ask all these convinced and devout posters if they think their god is an interventionist one, and how do they reconcile "their god" with all the others that people believe exist and who adamantly have faith in.'

Jesus Himself said that all that came before Him were thieves and robbers. He Himself claimed to be the only way to His Father. Either He was lying or telling the truth.To claim access to God except through Christ makes a mockery of His death and subsequent resurrection. It is not described as the narrow way for no reason. Without Christ's shed blood there is no forgiveness of sin and no one would receive eternal life.

All those who deny Christ are in the same boat as the god deniers and hod haters. They are still in their sin. Thankfully for those living it is not to late to turn to the only living God who is merciful enough to forgive and save you.

Deny Christ at your peril but don't try and make out that He is equal to some man whose body rotted in a grave.

Dear Cat.... I can be naughty/cheeky at times :) sorry..no offense... it was just too juicy.

My most valid point would be to refer you to Professor McCready a prominent microbiologist in Australia and suggest you have a chat about why he believes in God, in Christ, the Bible etc.

He could far better answer your questions than I, and on common ground.

Foxy outlined the usual 'Arguments' but each one does have an answer for the skeptical. They are only of real value to those already believing.

Pericles is in good form.. we must start PAYing him for his incisive analysis of others posts :)

Onya P

Dear David,

God may not be provable through mathematical formulae or properties of physics, but we live in an era where the evidence of an Intelligent Designer is all around us. Just look through any telescope in an observatory and peer to the edge of the massive cosmos. View the monitor of an electron-scanning microscope and delve into the intricate world of a microscopic cell. Try to comprehend the massive library of complex information inherent in the digital code that turns a fertilized egg into a human being. Study principles of quantum mechanics and investigate the world of extra-dimensionality. Review the nature of your conscience, subconscious, standards of morality, and thoughts of religion.

Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of randomness and chaos.

Based on what we know today, I truly believe that atheism (not believing in any kind of God) is a much bigger "leap of faith" than theism (believing that some kind of god exists).

Foxy: "Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of randomness and chaos."

A basic theory of randomness and chaos? Is that supposed to be the alternative to an intelligent designer?

Hey Pericles no problem, blush accepted.

Hell I can't talk I've had BOAZ on the outer since his claim that Peter Sellick wasn't a Christian and I gave the poor lad a slapping then that I'm not all that proud of.

I've even been known to refer to him and others as 'unintended servants of satan' for what I see as attitudes capable of turning far more people away from christianity than they could possibly hope to attract.

All this while not regarding myself as a believer.

So yes consistent analysis and rational behaviour can be wishful thinking sometimes.

Dear Vanilla,

When it comes to the question of "Does God Exist," there are only two scientific worldviews - Someone/Something did it, or it did itself.
Whether it's the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life, the beginning of mankind or the beginning of mind, either Someone/Something is responsible for everything we see or it's responsible for itself.

As I wrote in one of my previous posts on this thread. Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith, it's not a matter for the laboratory.

It's a personal, investigative decision for each and every one of us.

"A basic theory of randomness and chaos? Is that supposed to be the alternative to an intelligent designer?" - Vanilla

Yes.

The universe arises from chaos no matter which way you look at it, because if god created it, who created god?

Dear Sancho,

God is eternal. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,
the first and the last.

God has always been.

He not only began time.

He will also end it.

Hello Foxy,

When posting time permits will you please a look at my recent post on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Genesis on the Five Question site? Thank you.

In quantum mechanics there is no need for the Alpha or the Omega. There is infinite indeterminancy instead. Omega is Greek not Aramaic, suggesting Jesus was well versed in Greek. Not suprising, I think Judea was occupied by the Greeks for some hundred of years. Aleph, Hebrew? Alpha, Greek.

To Thiering, I think "O", Omega, super-added to Hebrew, means Highest Priest of Priests. That explanation might be in her Jesus -The Man Book. I don't have a copy. It is consistent with her work I "have" and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Faith?

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1804&page=8

Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 18 May 2008 8:26:56 PM

Well! That's all we have left. "IS FAITH":! "That's the living". But you want more from me.

Give me your Questions.

EVO

You seem like a bright guy BOAZ_David so I assume you understand that the opinion (regarding god) of one person, despite their standing in the scientific community, means little to me. I mean no offence but another prominent scientist (other than prof McMready) has called religion a delusion and some of the greatest minds ever have been blind to, or unwilling to accept certain facts. I agree with Dawkins view and believe that religion stands in the way of science. Science is the search for truth. Some areas where truth is sought have already been “accounted” for in the bible. My main problem is that when you begin an investigation with preconceived notions, conformation or denial is predetermined. It annoys me that people still deny evolution. Common arguments include things like “even its proponents call it a theory” and yes even “this famous scientist” or “that famous scientist” disagrees with it. For the latter, these scientists are a small minority and for the former science is fluid and, unlike religion, will not set anything in stone. It is a theory as it is waiting for anyone with sufficient evidence to improve it.
I apologise that this post is so all over the place but I have had maybe one wine to many.
Oh and there have been some good posts so far. Thanks to all.

Look! I will pick this up tomorrow. going too bed.

Good night.

KatieO
I am familiar with praying. I was raised a catholic (I went to mass every Sunday and confession every second Friday for the first 18 years of my life) and truth to tell, I believed it all for a fair while.
I suppose you are looking for a little more than Descartes famous words (as proof of my existence). I do think it is interesting though that the first part is “Dubito” ie “I doubt”. To me, physical evidence is enough. I suppose I am a little like Thomas. Thomas’s experience would do it for me, but until this happens I will continue to doubt. My mother has all these videos of Fatima, medjugorje, Lourdes etc. One of them speaks of a warning that is coming. This would probably do it for me as well. But I have no faith in any of these prophecies. If I was God (remembering god is supposedly all powerful) I could think of many ways to prove my existence, and all of them would be undeniable. Anyway when you pray has god ever talked back. Actually don’t answer that. My mother would tell me that “yes” he answers her all the time, but I don’t believe it, so probably won’t believe you.
In the end I can’t answer your prayers to prove my existence, as you believe god can. Physical evidence is all that is left to me. If this doesn’t suffice then I’ve got nothing.
But remember that this discussion was about empirical evidence. Meaning experience and sensory perception

PUSS.... :)

I quite agree... personal opinions of scholars..or..that game we all seem to love to play "My scholar can beat up your scholar" is rather futile.

I hope you bear this in mind, when I generally avoid such debates, and simply post 'Bible verses' at times when I feel they connect to the subject matter.
No offense taken :)

MY REDEMPTION DRAWETH NIGH.....

I didn't realize that CSTEELE had called me an "unintended servant of satan" (aaaahl get ya 4 that *swats csteele with a huge King James*:)

But..there is hope.. theCat says

"You seem like a bright guy BOAZ_David" (if only wall had the degrees to prove it :)

AAh.. its all good.. if we give, we must also take.

FOXY..I quite agree with what you said about cell complexity etc. I just don't think such arguments (good as they are) will bring someone from the 'broad way which leads to destruction' and onto 'the narrow way which leads to life', as much as a good dose of Gospel truth will.
I think it's a process.. so there is great value in raising such things.

CJ... you are a pest arn't u :) (WOOPS.. "personal attack". yikes)

Picking on me in the Kaysar thread about picking on Puss' spelling. (Done in light hearted jest of course and you knew it)

I note that neither you, Kaysar nor even FH actually refuted the claim I made.

All I got was

"denial" from Kaysar (+attack the Bible)
"you are still on that same page" from beloved FH
"You pick on peoples spelling mistakes" from you :)

I live in hope that people will bring down an ARGUMENT with ARGUMENT rather than denial or abuse.

Dear Cat

nice of you to share your early life experience there.

On a more sober note now.. you mention 'sensory and physical evidence'
which would alone convince you of God.

Let me raise a scenario.

You know someone for many years. You know their family. One of the family was born blind. They have matured, blind from birth.
they are 30 yrs old.
One day, the blind family member CAN SEE! and you ask him "HUH? how did this happen?" and he tells you "This bloke Jesus healed me!"

"WHAT-THE?" you say? - You can't understand it, you didn't see it, yet there, before you is the man himself and his 'report'.

You might recall from your Bible knowledge about this incident in John 9 What was it that the Pharisees asked him and then told him?

"How did this happen?" and
"Don't say Jesus did it, we KNOW he is a sinner"

RESPONSE: "Whether he is a sinner or not I don't know, but one thing I know, once I was blind, but now I can see"

I could share with you about my own person experience of that dramatic healing power, but I honestly believe that no matter how close it comes to your own life, there is ultimately an attitude problem which must be overcome. (I'm not saying that to annoy you)

If it happened to your blind sister..would you believe? Does it 'have' to happen to you personally?

RICH MAN(in hell) and LAZARUS

7"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Do you see yourself in that parable?

Boazy: << Picking on me in the Kaysar thread about picking on Puss' spelling. >>

Actually Boazy, my point in that thread was that it's as funny to see you pretending to be indignant about the "TRUTH" (as you put it), as it was to see you pointing out someone else's spelling mistakes. You know, because you've so frequently been caught out stretching the truth and telling outright porkies, and that your spelling ability is at a similar level to my 11-year old.

People in glass houses and all that...

There are some principles that are only observeable to humans that indicate there is an higher intelligence than man himself. Though man at rare meditative times gains a glimpse of these principles, at other times he lives for the moment absorbed in his basic body needs. God designed man to bear his image.

1. Conscience - the knowledge of a better way in relationships and personal responsibility. This is the primary message of God to man. A man who lives without conscience or conviction fails to reach his /her best potential.

2. Enlightenment - the fact man can learn wisdom and change attitudes and behaviours by his own self discipline indicate we have insight in higher principles for life.

3. Planning - Creativity - man can design and plan both abstract and spatial constructions that resemble principles of design in our universe.

4. Spiritual - (a) Man can use any concept to give physical pleasure eg instrumental music, art that reflects feelings. creative technology eg movies etc, etc.
(b) Man can express abstract concepts in symbolic forms eg writing, mathmatics etc. These are not present in supposed ancestral species. Indicating man has contact with the spiritual as well as the physical.
5. Mans primary being is spiritual, we ask questions on how and why we exist. Our existence here is spiritual unless we have knowledge of the body of each other posting here we are entering into a spiritual world. A world of ideas, motives, attitudes that form behaviour etc in all this the nature of the god / God we believe in is revealed. God is spirit not a being to be sighted by the natural eye, or reduced to chemical analysis but to be perceived by the eyes of reason - that there is purpose and design in human existence that is beyond economics and sport etc

One day, when I have absolutely nothing to do for a few hours, I'll put together a comprehensive list of Boaz-isms. This one will most definitely appear.

>>I quite agree... personal opinions of scholars..or..that game we all seem to love to play "My scholar can beat up your scholar" is rather futile.<<

I almost lost another keyboard to a random coffee incident when I read this.

This from Boaz, the man who enjoys nothing more than to quote this scholar's interpretation of that verse from the Qur'an, confounding the interpretation of yet another scholar whose views he dislikes. And who, when challenged on his interpretation of fact vs metaphor in the Bible, loves nothing more than to recruit a scholar or two.. however dubious.

(Remember the myth about "the founder of Harvard University? That little exchange will make the anthology, for sure)

One of the realities that you have yet to face Boaz is that these texts have absolutely no stand-alone credibility. Everything - but everything - has been interpreted.

Even the events that you take as "gospel" have been filtered through the eyes, mind and stylus of the writer. He didn't see the events, so they are not "reported" as fact. They are stories. Tales told in order to make a point.

You make a big deal over the blind man and about Lazarus.

>>On a more sober note now.. you mention 'sensory and physical evidence'<<

Whatever else they are, those stories are not about 'sensory and physical evidence'. They are not even reported speech. They are metaphors, at best. At "worst", they are deliberately made up to fool the gullible, but let's be charitable.

There is of course no shred of direct evidence that these miracles were performed. So the game is, and always will be a matter of "My scholar can beat up your scholar".

Which, as you correctly point out (hence the close call with the coffee), is utterly futile.

Don't you hate it when we agree on something?

Dear Evo,

The link is my own OLO. "Faith"; ithe link deals with the etymology of the Word and shows for instance that its current usage didn't become part of the English language until the fourteen century [OED Unabridge]. To Moses it meant "steadfaithness" [Catholic Enclopaedia].

My point is the word is used too loosely. And to say today, "one today has 'Faith' in Jesus", is using the the word "faith" in a slightly different manner than would be known to an Attic-Greek [Judea], Aramaic Diasporic Jew [Jesus] in the first century of the current era.

Evo, please re-check the link, even the concept of "Faith" is factionalisedand transmutes over the centuries. Herein, Faith as used by our OLO theist friends has a very different meaning to Moses', and a somewhat different meaning to Jesus'. Jesus' meaning refers to truth & obedience. In later century centuries, we have turo-charged the concept, to claim, we have "conviction" in the One asking for said trust and obedience.

Look at the site and their are five questions that challenge theismz; e.g., How do you explain the existence of God? [A different question to does God exist? If one adopts the a priori position one should explain it, don;t you think?

Evo based-on your previous potss, I am suprised you are a religionist. That is your right. But please consider the questions, I ask, on the [my] other post. Faith as we use the term today is about six hundred years old. Even words and concepts are ininfluence by the progress of societies and sicio-etymological reinforcement.

Csteel,

Peter Sellick is a Christian, I feel. A fourteen century Christian. Peter appears to believe in the priesthood over the laity and to angainst the Enlightenment. There is a stromg element of fifth century dogma in his articles. Yet very little about first century history in context with Jesus aganst comparative religiosity of the first century and before, Wells' Alexandrian "God Factory".

Evo & CSteel,

The claims of thesits need be confirmed against other disciplines, as other disciplines each other among themselves.

Kind regards.

Dear Oliver,

I have read all of your responses on the "five question' site.

They are all valid, extremely well argued - and made for an interesting thread. Gave me much food for thought - (and now an inclination to do further research).

Olly, I used the terms "Alpha and Omega," simply as an expression. (The 'Beginning' and 'The end.')
Meaning that God is outside the concepts of time and space - He invented them. Everything starts and ends with Him.

Anyway, I think that I've exhausted this subject. Again, Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your kind words which are readily reciprocated. Appreciate your comments on the Alpha and the Omega.

I think the old thread has only a day or so left. If time permits, I will try for summary of ideas in-closure.

Trust we will have the opportunity discuss OLO issues again in the future.

Sincere regards,

O.

Oliver. That will do for now. Too much to soon will create over-load.

But someone here made a point that has had me thinking for quite some time and I think this needs to be done ASAP for the next generations to come.

Blending science and the bible( some parts of) together and make a hole new book. Its too late for the people that are already born now, but for those that have not been corrupted with this ridiculous concept of heaven and hell.
The new book can start very much the way the old one did.eg "In the beginning there was an all-mighty bang". in stead of god created the universe and so on. More facts of today's world instead the old text and fairy-tails. This new book will help mankind to ween away the old concepts and bring some "up to date" realities about what mankind has found out.
This in my view, would help the up and comings in ways, quite frankly, we today, just couldn't understand.

Just a thought.

EVO

Evo,

Greetings.

" 'In the beginning there was an all-mighty bang"', one hell of bang, there has been nothing like ever since time began after it." Footnote: "This theory is tentatively held open to and invites testing, alternative and criticism, to see if can be disproven or improve."

I have known for a long time the conflict between Science and Theism. I have tried History and more recently, linguistics, to guide Theists to consider the aforementiond. Christians adopt the aproach that Pilate was as if proconsul in 60s, when he was prefect a generation earlier. Heaps happened invoving the more zealous zealots. If adopts the adopts the A.D. calendar when Jesus was born, Herod was dead at the time of said birth.

Research has helped three years ago I though Jesus was a composite. Today I believe he was a real person, upon whom, accretions have been heaped.

I would never claim the moral aspects of are wrong, rather that these matters stand-alone.

Peace.

Philo,

Greetings friend.

From my Five Questions Post post and your excellent comments, fro your perspective, here. I see between Theists and non-Theists a conflict regarding the ontology of proofs, The form derive their gods from expression of their observation [intelligent design] or situation [war gods, agriculture gods etic]; whereas the latter seek tangibility and evidence. The former appears projective and the latter septical and evaluative. Each has different boundaries with regards what can be held upto "further" investigation. Epistemological the form sits perhaps, in the Anglo-West, after the Potestant Reformation, but before The Great Divergence [c.1760], the theory of knowledge evolved.

You might retort stating that the most technologically advanced country, the US, is quite religious. Yet, I posit, a disassociative state. Today, God and work are separated [Sorry Weber]. Moreover, many [no all] of the great thinkers like Gell-Mann are Theists.

Happiness.

Hi Pericles :) u know.. if OLO is good for nothing else, it must be worth something for the humor that is generated!

If you do your 'boaz'isms..I'll do my 'Pericles' ism.. and top of the list will be "Keeping of domestic pets is slavery" :)

On the "scholars" thing... this is a bit 'nuanced' but I know you have the capability to follow it.
Check out my last post to KT in that thread.. where the issue is not so much 'my scholar verses your scholar' but "what did the original source actually say" and the source in this case is the Hadith of Bukhari.

Kaysar claimed that 'the words in brackets are the opion of the translator' so..I went to considerable trouble to show which words were in brackets..which were not, and thus what is left which can be then factored in to the argument.

There are limits to how far I'll go with such debates, and I've pretty much reached that limit on that one. KatieO is doing a great job as Tag team partner :)

Honestly P, your lack of broad understanding of Islamic sources prevents you knowing when you are being given 'spin' by Kaysar.
I see it immediately, because I've done the reading

You might notice that I've pretty much avoided responding to the 'Dreyfus Case ' approach by Kaysar. "Filling the evidence file with useless irrelevant infomation" and I've stuck with the ONE issue I am trying to establish. "Prepubescent marriage"

The only thing which can change that discussion now, would be for Kaysar to show (and me to verify) that the hadith in question, does not say what 3 different Muslim web search sites all DO say.(word for word)

Trust me.. if I don't feel satisfied with the outcome, I'll goto an Arabic speaking secular professor if I have to with the original Bukhari text.

*digs heels in...determined look*

have a great day and WATCH that cofee :)

Are you sure Boaz?

>>If you do your 'boaz'isms..I'll do my 'Pericles' ism.. and top of the list will be "Keeping of domestic pets is slavery" :)<<

I kinda hoped it would have been "when did you stop beating your daughter?"

"You feel up lifted with your experiences of Jesus, and you think that was grand, wait until you throw this -religious monkey- off one's back and feel the real freedom that no god exists." - evolution

I guess James and Jesus would have needed to the same, rhyses, no, rhesus factor. Else, it would have pretty hard to deal with Mary's anti-bodies back in the first century. Come to think of it God, Jesus and Mary would all need to have had common a rhysus factor.

Does God have Hæmolytic Anæmia prevelant in Jewish populations?

O.

Error:

Gell-Mann is a an Atheist.

Being a dyslexic, who can't type, on chemo., is hard work. ;-).

Cheers.

O.

cybacaT
Intelligent design is one of the worst things to happen to the search for truth in history.

BOAZ_David
In response to your Wednesday 21 post:
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Does this mean anything to you.
The bible is a little less believable then JRR. But quite entertaining (especially revelations).
Do not quote the bible, which so openly advocates slavery and other forms of oppression (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, genesis etc). On top of the societal faux pas it makes it also contradicts itself many, many times eg. PSA 145:9 The lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
This is why I asked for no bible quotes.
This gospel truth you speak of, is it only present in some parts of the bible or do you believe all of the (excuse me) tripe in that book

Mr cat. Dont bother! The mans a idiot.

David! Your a smart man? When our sun dies, the first four planets will be totally vaporized!

So where your gods plan now!

Sorry. I forgot the "IS" after where. David! Iam an idiot lol, at least I can admit it!

Have a nice day.

EVO

Evo,

Yep,

And it has happened before. Sol is a third generation star. But look on the bright side [pun alert], seven or eight billion years from now, there could be a new solar system with more heavy metals like, gold. Au not AC/DC.

:-)

O.

Just having a little fun.

EVO

The end is neigh:

On another post One Under God thinks China is about to cause the end of the world according to revelation. Please note to be fair to the original auther tat topic is actually on China.

If yu wish, Please See Oliver, Friday, 23 May 2008 2:56:06 PM @

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7396&page=3

Scroll up to see o-u-g's comments.

Some Latin characters didn't print.

Cheers.

Fellow_Human:We don’t call it the lucky country for nothing! Any young son of a migrant, educated in the Australian catholic education system, and LatrobeUni should have the chance to raise a $34 million paypacket regardless of race or religion! Ahmed Fahour wasn’t hired because he was a muslim and he can’t claim his success because of it.

I indicated that muslims living in Dar al-Harb, a country of predominately non-Muslims, were not a threat, and I know enough muslims to substantiate this from my own experience.

The underlying suggestion of Keyser was that Australia was at peace with Islam, when by the Islamic definition, it is not. Islam’s unilateral pursuit of dar al-Islam is mapped out in the holy book and there is no muslim voice to have this expurgated from the Qu’ran.

Conclusion: Behind the muslim greeting of peace is the paradox of sustained warfare and violence.

Keyser: while you condemn me and do not consider me worthy of salvation, my holy book says that God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). He does not want any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). And most importantly, that the blood of Jesus Christ has purchased people from every tribe, lanugage, people and nation (Revelation 5:9).

For "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21)

And "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).

My only desire is for your acceptance of the Gospel. Why else do I bother?

Don't you just love it when intelligent and polite Muslims come into a forum like this to explain their points of view, and the resident fundy Christians presume to correct them on their understanding of their religion?

At least the Islamophobes could try and post on the relevant threads. Fellow Human hasn't been involved in this particular discussion, and Boazy has brought Keysar Trad into at least one unrelated discussion on another thread today.

While I'm aware that your faith and fear apparently permeate every aspect of your apparently miserable existences, could you please be aware that this is not the case for normal people?

Oops! I had both windows opened at the same time and mistakenly posted my message on the wrong thread. Sorry CJ and everyone else , that was unintentional. I take your point CJ, but this post is belongs elsewhere.

Foxy,

You're the only Christian on these boards whose opinion I respect, so I am dismayed to see you misrepresenting the materialist/scientific view of life in your post of Sunday, 18 May 2008 7:34:43 PM. Because I wasn't used to you posting such anti-science, anti-truth and obviously dishonest material, I suspected you'd cut and pasted it from some kind of Christian website. So I gooogled and found the source here: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/does-god-exist.htm

To be honest, I don't care what the rest of them think, but I think you are smarter than that post would indicate. The ideas you're regurgitating are ugly. They're ugly because they're lies, and they're ugly because they exploit people without scientific education and knowledge in order to harvest souls.

You're free to believe what you like, but I don't believe you should justify your beliefs by misrepresenting the scientific view. I really encourage you to read a good evolutionary primer, and make up your own mind about the veracity of its theories, rather than borrow them from a website that simply exploits the stupidity of others.

Richard Dawkins's book The Ancestor's Tale might be a good starting point. Mind you, I've been trying to read it for about a year, but it's as good a place as any.

Obviously there is no intelligence or design in the way the cat interprets the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Understanding the background and context is beyond the capacity of a scrambled mind. We have to conclude that unintelligent grey matter has no design or reason. It just happens!

Vanilla: << Foxy,

You're the only Christian on these boards whose opinion I respect, so I am dismayed to see you misrepresenting the materialist/scientific view of life... >>

I'm afraid I have to concur with Vanilla here. Because of my respect for Foxy, I too let it pass, but it has been bothering me.

While of course she's entitled to take on the ID stuff if that helps to reconcile her religion with reality, if this nonsense is indeed what she truly believes then I'll have to reappraise my assessment of her objectivity on certain topics.

There are plenty of Christians who can accommodate science into their worldview without having to resort to the ID delusion.

But I still think Foxy's great :)

Hey, please lighten-up on Foxy, albeit the URL should been acknowledged, especially for such a long quote. Tut.tut. Anyway, that's not the point here.

The idea of olo is argument & counter-argument, so we all learn.: e.g.,

- Causation: Quantum mechanics provides determancy/infinite indeterminancy, as an alternative to cause and effect.

- Order: Forces provide logical organisation based on mathematical models.

And as certain King of Siam would say; etc., etc., etc.

I especially respect George and Philo, who think, before they hit the keyboard. They support teir beliefs with reasoning; I hope I do to. Atheist, Agnostic or Thesist, we a are on a quest of discovery, folks.

Argument, analysis, discussion...

Chide is over. You all take care, friends

CJ says...

<<if this nonsense is indeed what she truly believes then I'll have to reappraise my assessment of her objectivity on certain topics.>>

Says he who rarely actually looks at issues :) and prefers to throw verbal grenades from a safe distance of 'no research/no interest'

and ... Vanilla said

<<Richard Dawkins's book The Ancestor's Tale might be a good starting point.>>

at which point, I totalled out my keyboard with diet coke... ruined my monitor with the gushhhhh spray splurt of the stuff.....
and almost needed intensive care for the trauma of falling off my chair :)

Dear V..with friends like 'Dawkins'.... who needs enemies?

Yes..I conFESS.. "I'm mocking" :) sorry.. I can't resist that one.

But I lub ya's all.
God bless.

Philo
Perhaps no intelligence, but certainly design. My interpretation reeks with my motives.
No Christians will say that a part of the bible is metaphorical until it is conclusively disproved. I don’t think that you can argue that the context has any bearing on the meaning of text. The bible is known as the “word of the lord”. Are you saying that the lord changes his stance on issues to suit the times or the social climate of those times? When someone points out that the bible was written long after the facts, Christians will argue that it was inspired by the divine and hence accurate. If it is accurate and inspired by an all-knowing being then the background and context is irreverent because god is supposed to be omniscient.
If the bible says it, it must be so.
This poses many problems, as many of the things that are acceptable in the bible are considered abhorrent by modern standards. So it comes down to whether our morals and ethics on things such as slavery are misguided or is god a little odd?
In the end is it the word of the lord, or is it a text written by misguided individuals with weird ideas?
I don’t mean to offend (though I am sure that I have and will), remember that this is just my opinion.

Boazy. Actually, you are not mocking. Mocking is (according to the Cambridge) to "to laugh at someone, often by copying them in an amusing but unkind way". It requires a bit of wit, because you have to appropriate the mockee's point and apply some irony or sarcasm. You need to be amusing yourself. I have never seen you mock anyone on these boards.

What you did was dribble some Coca Cola product from your mouth because you heard the word "Dawkins".

Cat because you believe your brain just happened from a random collection of molocules that happened to be in the right envirionment it is easy to make anything appear rational to your undesigned brain.

The Scriptures reports events as they happened in the life of Israel - sins and all in the culture of the day with the understanding they had of morality. Jesus who is the Christ clearly gave a clear revelation of the character of God and contradicted events they saw as right. The hebrews believed in "Hate your enemy" Jesus taught "Love your enemy". However characters in the Hebrew nation saw glimpses of how to live in slavery, like Moses, in captivity like Daniel, in interacial marriage like Esther. God is about working with individuals in their situation rather than nationalism, which is the context of much of the Hebrew history.

How are you making a difference to improve the problems in your world through your life, attitudes, actions?

I have to concur with both Vanilla and CJ.

Like CJ, I was going to let it slide (since I agree with Foxy on most other issues), but I don't think I can anymore. It pains me to do this, but common sense and truth must prevail.

So, to address Foxy's list...

* No. God does not necessarily provide the best explanation for everything that exists.

Everything that we know exists starts from a simple entity, then evolves into a more complex entity. If God exists, then He/She/It would be the most complex thing in existence. Therefore, to suggest that everything we know started with a more complex being like a God is illogical.

Now it's at this point that the religious will say: “Oh, but God is not of this universe. He cannot be explained.”

Well, all I can say is: “Isn't that just too easy”. Stating that God cannot be explained is nothing more than an excuse not to think and explains nothing.

* For this, all I could say is that you should read up a bit on science. I couldn't possibly fit a response to this in one post. All I can say is that it isn't helpful in this modern day and age to assume that a God 'must've done it', just because we may not have the full answers. That's what privative people did (like those who wrote Genesis) and look how foolish they seem now.

* Design? This is my favourite Creationist fallacy.

Complexity does not imply design. Simplicity is the main goal of design. To me personally, the complexity of the universe and all the life that is in it, is what eventually convinced me that there was no God.

Why would God try to fool us by creating the life and the universe so that there were irrefutable alternative (and more rational) explanations?

* If God is the best explanation for the encoded instructions in our DNA, then why is 80% of our DNA junk DNA that does nothing?

Junk DNA, like everything else that exists, is evidence for evolution.

Continued...

...Continued

So again, why would God be so deceitful that he would pack our DNA with junk?

* Um... Behe's “Irreducible Complexity” was debunked almost immediately after mentioned it...

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1_1.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_3.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_5.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

* Duality? Too much to go into here, but all I can say is that considering how little we know about the brain and emotions, we are no better than primitive tribes to assume that a magical being did it.

* Same as above for 'morality'. Inter-subjectivity and survival provide adequate explanations for morality.

In fact, if it wasn't for secularism, we could quite easily still be burning heretics at the stake.

Secularism, inter-subjectivity and evolution are all that has helped us to ignore the viciousness in the Bible and focus on the good in it. It is only because of non-religious influences that we now know how to pick out the good bits. Otherwise, how would we have known that (most) of what Jesus said (if he even existed, which we can't know for sure) was good and not bad?

It had to have been an outside (Secular) influence, because it certainly wasn't the Bible – particularly the Old Testament.

C'mon Foxy, you're smarter than that. Please don't fall for the deceitfulness of Creationists. All Creationists do is try to create a sense of confusion that isn't there. Heck! You can even disprove Creationism conclusively with simple Google searches!

Philo,

You've had this explained before, but it seems that Christians are a little slow, so here it is again...

Randomness has virtually nothing to do with evolution.

Boaz,

You've never read anything of Dawkins', so how can you comment?

As for the alleged dinosaur carving in Cambodia, there are many explanations for that. Creationists must really be clutching at straws to think that proves anything!

It is an absolute fact that humans were not around at the same time as dinosaurs. If they were, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.

Philo,

"God is about working with individuals in their situation rather than nationalism, which is the context of much of the Hebrew history."

As I have commented before Moses seems to be preventing the transition for a nomadic/war god to an agricultural gos. This seems to be Moses trying to keep group consolidation not create indivualism. Mohammed did the same thing in sventh century CE. I see evolutions taking place, as we turn the pages of history. But those persons participating in living, seem to project their current situation onto god and their charactisation of god. This appears bottom-up, rather than top-down, at least until Nicaea, where matters became more institutioalised into dogma.

Do you mean individualism or individuals as conduits?

Panthesim and dual-names for the same god seem to have been important to the Eyptians, Greeks and Romans. Egyptian monotheism lasted only the rule of Akhenaten. The social/political pressure on Ankhkheperure to revert must have have been great. And he did.

Reverting back to an early post, can you pleaes give me a citation on James the Elder being Jesus' brother. My research comes up with a person several generations into first century.

Thanks.

O.

Boazy: << Says he who rarely actually looks at issues :) and prefers to throw verbal grenades from a safe distance of 'no research/no interest' >>

Now Boazy - while "no interest" may be somewhere near the mark in the case of your interminable blather, you know that my "research" has been far more extensive and qualified than your own - which seems to be restricted to holy books and associated texts, Google and YouTube.

Once again, people in glass houses and all that...

AJ Philips

I have never read such crap in all my life. No wonder evolutionist must keep changing their stories.

Vanilla and CJ

Thank you for your posts regarding Foxy's perplexing belief in ID. I too respect her and hope that she takes the time in investigate evolution further. Foxy, most of our knowledge of medicine, botany, biology, agronomics, genetics etc, have at their foundation our understanding of evolution. We simply wouldn't have the level of technology that we use today without this knowledge.

AJPhilips, thank you the time you put into your post, while it is clearly wasted on the likes of Runner, there are many others interested in learning about the natural world and your posts give hope to many that those who wilfully disregard knowledge are few and those who find wonder in the universe around us are legion.

An excellent place to start is here:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1998/04/23/2119397.htm?site=science&topic=ancient

The Ptolemic model was largely wrong, yet it did give us the idea of circle, to be read, as orbits. Similarly, the BB theory will have flaws, to corrected by science. It called progress.

Creationists are in the same position as were the Jesuits whom believed in the crystal spheres when the for time advanced Chinese astronomers tried unsuccessfully to explain a more accurate system to them.

An Emperical God need to be explained. Why do we need God for a creation; cause and effect are note required. Time is a produced dimension.

The universe[s] happened.

Even if one accepts Intelligent Design. Where, designis intelligent, like the shape of a soap bubble. Why not forces determing an optimal shape? Why god(s).

Creation: Why not proto-physics and physics?

What is the "conceptual model of God"? Why is god necessary for the phenomena we observe? Not any of this meaningles "there billions of stars and look at a pretty lake" explanation; rather, architectual or conceptual explanations for God's existence, please

While looking through conservapedia and getting steadily more uneasy at how stupid some people really can be, I actually managed to come across a gem of a discussion.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Pastafarianism

Under 'why Atheism is ridiculous' a very good point is made. (I see it as an argument in favour of agnosticism, but no doubt that is shaped by my own secular views).

Essentially, the argument is this: god is a label. If we define 'everything' as god, then god must exist because everything exists by its own definition.

So it really depends what you call god. A poster replied on the conservapedia website, that this proposition was ludicrous, because it could just as easily prove the existence of Thor or Marduk.

As I see it, it's the ritualistic nature of god and religion that cannot be proved, coupled with the concept of an intelligent creator, or 'interventionist' god.

It's all about perspective. That's all we have here - our various ways of labelling existence.
That's why I prefer to stick with things that do exist - things I know can be proven one way or another.
Or, put more simply, things that don't rely on faith. I may not know the precise engineering behind an elevator, but I'll use one because I know that there are people who do know such things, and such things can be learnt from an engineering course.

The same cannot be said of the knowledge of a divine creator - particularly knowing the nature of such a creator.
Nobody can know such a thing, to believe otherwise is wishful thinking. Provided such wishful thinking is harmless, then faith can be something of a bulwark against adversity. When it is used as a sledgehammer for dictating moral superiority however, then I've no patience for it whatsoever.

Thanks for the compliment, Fractelle.

Ever since I decided to scrutinise Creationism, rather than believe it simply because that's what I was brought up to believe, I have been passionate about revealing it to be the nonsense that it is. Especially when you have Creationists brainwashing innocent children and teaching them not to think... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY.

Thank you too, Runner.

Your disagreement is confirmation that what I said was right (Although, re-reading it now, I could have worded some of it better).

Saying that something is “crap”, doesn't make it so.

Can you give any reasons as to why any of what I said was “crap”?

Good Morning,

I had left this thread - but I'm back briefly.

I wasn't going to respond to Vanilla's post questioning the one I gave on Sunday 18th May 2008. However, I feel that I do owe an explanation to those of you that were kind enough to come to my defence - especially you Oliver.

I admit that I took the "easy option" that Sunday - being extremely tired. I should have acknowledged the website.

"Mea Culpa," I apologise - red-faced.

Anyway, I'll sum up the traditional arguments for the existence of God:
The ontological argument, formulated by St. Anselm and later restated by Rene Descartes, that the gradations of perfection evident in the material world imply an absolute perfection, which is God.

The cosmological argument of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas that, inasmuch as every effect in the material world has a cause and an infinite regression of finite causes is inconceivable, the chain of cause and effect must ultimately extend back to a First Cause, which is God.

The teleological argument proceeding from the order and arrangement in the universe, which postulate the existence of an intelligence and power as the fountainhead of order.

And, the moral argument of Immanuel Kant, which holds that the moral law inherent in human nature implies an external Lawgiver, which is God.

Kant later claimed to have refuted not only these traditional arguments but also their antitheses; he became the founder of modern agnosticism.

Anyway -I feel that, as I said earlier - I've pretty much exhausted this topic and really don't want to go on with any further discussion.
Except to say that on a personal level, when I listen to the magnificent voice of the soprano Maria Cecilia Bartoli, or watch a
DVD of the famous Russian violinist Maxim Vengerov - I know in my heart that there is a God.

Hi Foxy,

All is forgiven. In a bit of a rush today. Will look forward to reading your last contribution soon.

You have a great day, friend.

O.

thecat

Empirical evidence? There is none. Faith based belief does not require scientific validation.

It is unfathomable that evolution is easily dismissed as unbelievable, yet belief in a completely unproven entity is easily accepted.

This despite the evidence and logical reasoning in the idea of an evolutionary process - of natural selection and adaptation. The difference between myth and science is that science is willing to adapt in the face of new evidence and reassess previously held beliefs and convictions.

If we take intelligent design as the work of some superior being - 'God' why not go further and ask:

Who designed God?
How did God come to be? Was God created in a vaccuum completely devoid of any other being, entity or physical matter?
Why are there so many 'Gods' all purporting to be the only one and the only saviour? (It's getting crowded up there)

This is not an attempt to ridicule the believers, it's just that I really don't get it. Religion certainly makes an interesting psychological and anthropological study.

To quote Dawkins (please don't faint Boazy :)):
"An atheist before Darwin could have said...: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

I resent having to say "I am an "atheist". It means I have had to define myself to a category of someonelse's making due to the continued and historical perpetuation of one of the greatest myths of all time.

It would be like someone insisting that fairies live at the bottom of the garden and suddenly I then have to become labelled as a 'Nonfairiest' and have to continually prove that fairies don't exist with no obligation on the part of 'Fairians' to prove the little winged creatures exist.

Pelican, Hi!

The notion of Design as might apply to god is essential. As Dawkins points out a god must be a complex entity. Hoe does one explain said sate? Christans and presumably other religions too have difficulty in explaining the architecture of god or a conceptual model of that alleged entity.

Albeit, I think there is a model in one Indian religion to explain Earth's place, and, its gods are stack of elephants and tutles holding us here in space. At a certain point one asks, where does it all stop? "Well, with the tutles, evenually, its tutles all the way down," is the retort.

Infinite regress, its hard to avoid. Yet, today, we have progressed to infinite indetermancy in QM. Actually, the latter posits a preferred model to me. There is no need for causality in its casual meaning.

Dear-cat i-needed to-know your-area of-'science 'to-be-able-to respond to-you in-your-own-frame of referance ,so-you work-with plants, or genes-or-micro bacteria.

By-now you_should_be_well-aware that-wheat [micro-evolves into_wheat,
that_bateria micro-evolves_into-[who could have guessed it] ;bacteria]

Even plastic-eating_bacteria is-yet_ONLY_capable of micro-evolution from_bacteria-into-other_bacteria

[not macro_evolution into-a-neo[new]-species]

You_further would-be aware , we_share-50-percent of-our dna_with_a bannana ,

but its funny no-bannana_ancestor is-mentioned in-our-faux_science familly-tree,
you did ask for non-religious_texts,
yet fail to see the-science_peers [like-dorkins have-little idea what-they are talking-about]

i debated the-fraud for-5-pages once
about his flat-fish 'evolution THEORY ,
which_he_deleted after he lost.

As-a_bio_scientist_you-would be-aware about-the_concept-of-wild_type

[in pigions the-area i-studied it-is called the_blue_barred_rock_dove,

that MICRO evolved into-all the-types of-[breeds]-of pigeons

the same-with darwins_finches

[recall that though they were divergent in phenotype yet they ALL were yet finches geneticlly [that-finding led_darwin to_pigions+dog breeds-etc.

You may-or-may_not_know of mendelism_inheritors ,
these ensure that-when-your_fancy-wheat_is crossed to any other wheat its wild type genome resurfaces [depending on_its being resesive_or_dominant]

You must_know genonic_stasis is a_constant
,that MACRO_evolution is proven-fraud-simply-by mendelic_inheritance and_genetics [
ie both valid sciences [that disolve the THEORY of MACRO-evolution-into-neo-species]

I once-believed the false-gods of-science ,
but by seeing their-theory-And-via using it revealed to myself it-evolution- was a lie ,

Then i had to find the real cause
[so by the process of elimination came to know god ,

then by much further reading of those forbidden-by-you-[religion] text'sss found god ,
by realising that god is love
[that evil is from man ;freewill ].

any way i found god by testing the alternative theories

,please note or deney ,
no scientist has ever {EVER] made-even-a simple cell_membrane ,

nor EVER replicated [evolved]a single NEO new evolution{into a new species]
horseXdonkey ie a mule isnt a new species ,

Noting millions of generations of fruitfly breedings have NEVER produced anything but mutated fruit flies

Then note for 10,s of millions of years monkey breeds monkey till a mere 100,000 years ago
suddenly we have the-'evolution' into human
[compare-the-ammount-of mutations-between-ape+human]

[a much largers step than all the billions of generations of previous monkey types].