| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Francis" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2004 01:24:34 PM |
| Object: |
Important Question |
Hi all,
I have a question that's been on my mind recently - where do atheists
believe the world came from and how do they believe it is regulated ie
nature, seasons, orbit etc without God?
I'd appreciate any genuine answers to this question.
Regards,
Francis.
.
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
04 Sep 2004 10:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> astounded us with:
news:ch7ond$4b6$1@kermit.esat.net:
Hi all,
I have a question that's been on my mind recently - where do atheists
believe the world came from and how do they believe it is regulated ie
nature, seasons, orbit etc without God?
So you believe that God regulates it all. But of course, it's so simple,
well, time to throw away all my physics books....
I'd appreciate any genuine answers to this question.
Regards,
Francis.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 02:10:28 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
Hi all,
I have a question that's been on my mind recently - where do atheists
believe the world came from and how do they believe it is regulated ie
nature, seasons, orbit etc without God?
I'd appreciate any genuine answers to this question.
....
Why don't we work on that one, while you work on "Where do theists
believe the creator of the world came from, and how do they believe
she operates with regularity without a source of that regularity?
Oh, you don't want to assume that about God, without a good reason?
Well, maybe atheists don't want to assume that about the world --
without a good reason.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 02:20:48 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Why don't we work on that one, while you work on "Where do theists
believe the creator of the world came from, and how do they believe
she operates with regularity without a source of that regularity?
Oh, you don't want to assume that about God, without a good reason?
Well, maybe atheists don't want to assume that about the world --
without a good reason.
I see.
Well whether you believe in God or not, it seems reasonable to say that the
world came from somewhere. I understand, from my research of scripture, that
God is an eternal everliving person. He created the world and maintains it.
As hard as that may be to understand, it is an answer and seems reasonable,
and I don't see how that it can be disproved.
Even if we accept that there is no God, where did the world then come from
in the first place. If there was a primordial soup, where did the
ingredients come from?
Thank you for your comments.
Regards,
Francis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 03:43:02 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Why don't we work on that one, while you work on "Where do theists
believe the creator of the world came from, and how do they believe
she operates with regularity without a source of that regularity?
Oh, you don't want to assume that about God, without a good reason?
Well, maybe atheists don't want to assume that about the world --
without a good reason.
I see.
Well whether you believe in God or not, it seems reasonable to say that the
world came from somewhere.
OK, you aren't just a troll, so I will give you a serious answer.
When you say the "world" and refer only to the planets, space, and us,
etc., you are being incomplete. The world includes everything that is.
The world is always a manifestation of all that is. Time is included
in this particular manifestation, and so are we, who experience things
in it. God, or at least some idea of God, is manifested in this world.
Was the world always manifested the way it is? That is not a good
question, because it assumes that time was always manifested. But the
answer is, no. It was manifested some other way, a way we can't be
sure we would understand, if we existed and could experience things in
it. But we know it was not always manifested in the way it is,
otherwise it would not manifest being of a finite age. And its
manifestation is *always* changing. We know that. We can't be sure
that anything that is manifested in this world will continue to be.
As hard as that may be to understand, it is an answer, and seems
reasonable, and I don't see how it can be disproved.
I understand, from my research of scripture, that
God is an eternal everliving person. He created the world and maintains it.
As hard as that may be to understand, it is an answer and seems reasonable,
and I don't see how that it can be disproved.
Have you heard about the religion I have founded called Justnowism?
The world has come to be, just now. This is true any time you think
about it. You memories of a past, have come to be just now. Your idea
of God has come to be just now, and is as real as God is. And so
forth. Naturally, like all religions, it is based on a story about the
world, to help make sense of things.
Oh, and it can't be disproven.
There is also Justmeism, but I don't recommend it. ;-)
Even if we accept that there is no God, where did the world then come from
in the first place. If there was a primordial soup, where did the
ingredients come from?
The "previous" manifestation, if that time-loaded word applies.
After all, if we can be reincarnated, why can't the world? And why
would the "next" manifestation "follow" this one in time?
The physicalists might say it like this; each Big Bang was preceded by
the previous Big Crunch, which was preceded by the previous Big Bang,
etc. But since time does not carry across from one to the next, it is
inaccurate to say that this sequence goes back infinitely in time.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 05:39:34 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
OK, you aren't just a troll, so I will give you a serious answer.
Thank you for giving me an actual intelligent answer, as opposed to a lot of
emotion and accusation that I seem to have stirred by asking my initial
question.
By what you are saying it seems our beliefs are as good as each others at
face level, but ancient scripture such as the Vedas seem to make a lot of
sense to me. They also discuss what you say about the world and its
destruction and change etc.
It seems to me that if all this is possible by the world, and even creating
intelligent questioning being is possible, by the millions, then why not a
controller, who is God?
This is what the scriptures say, and they go into unbelievable detail about
it all.
Regards,
Francis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 08:13:05 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
OK, you aren't just a troll, so I will give you a serious answer.
Thank you for giving me an actual intelligent answer, as opposed to a lot of
emotion and accusation that I seem to have stirred by asking my initial
question.
By what you are saying it seems our beliefs are as good as each others at
face level, but ancient scripture such as the Vedas seem to make a lot of
sense to me. They also discuss what you say about the world and its
destruction and change etc.
It seems to me that if all this is possible by the world, and even creating
intelligent questioning being is possible, by the millions, then why not a
controller, who is God?
This is what the scriptures say, and they go into unbelievable detail about
it all.
Well, if unbelievable means intellectually unacceptable, accept the
believable, and leave the rest. We might have different thresholds on
that.
I see that your post has made for a lot of commotion. Good luck on
your journey. I don't think I have much to add to what I have offered,
especially if you are familiar with the Vedas.
Cheers,
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 06:30:07 PM |
|
|
Francis wrote:
"Jim07D4" <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
OK, you aren't just a troll, so I will give you a serious answer.
Thank you for giving me an actual intelligent answer, as opposed to a lot of
emotion and accusation that I seem to have stirred by asking my initial
question.
By what you are saying it seems our beliefs are as good as each others at
face level, but ancient scripture such as the Vedas seem to make a lot of
sense to me. They also discuss what you say about the world and its
destruction and change etc.
It seems to me that if all this is possible by the world, and even creating
intelligent questioning being is possible, by the millions, then why not a
controller, who is God?
But you understand that "why not?" isn't good enough for us?
For most atheists, it's not enough to show that god *could*
exist, you would have to convince us that he actually *does*
exist.
I mean, unicorns could exist. We haven't explored every
square inch of the world. We're still finding new species
all the time. So it's perfectly possible that unicorns
could exist, somewhere out there. It even makes a kind of
sense - there are horses, there are animals with horns,
why not a horse with a horn?
But what does it take to jump from "could be true" to
actual positive belief? Evidence! Show me the effect
on the natural habitat that unicorns have; show me the
droppings, the footprints. Show me the skeletons of
dead unicorns, the pictures of unicorns in the wild,
above all show me a captured unicorn. But don't just
ask me to jump from "could exist" to "does exist"
for no reason.
And don't ask it for god, either.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 06:34:47 PM |
|
|
But you understand that "why not?" isn't good enough for us?
For most atheists, it's not enough to show that god *could*
exist, you would have to convince us that he actually *does*
exist.
Leaving the word God aside for a moment, there is obviously some force -
call it whatever you like - that causes the universe to evolve, exist and
consiousness to exist so we can have this discussion now. I choose to call
this God because by reading the Vedic scriptures all this is described and
the laws behind it are gone into in detail and it makes sense. It is vast.
You can call it what you like.
Francis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BMR" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 07:57:30 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ch8asv$9tt$1@kermit.esat.net...
Leaving the word God aside for a moment, there is obviously some force -
call it whatever you like - that causes the universe to evolve, exist and
Surely this haves rather something to do with the electromagnetical force,
than to some vague "entity" or spiritualized/hyperpowered "force".
consiousness to exist so we can have this discussion now. I choose to call
this God because by reading the Vedic scriptures all this is described and
Well, apropos, stick to the first chapters of the Rig, and you'll read:
"Truth is one, though wise ones can reach it in many ways".
--
B. Catalano
www.alexamenos.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 07:16:47 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:ch8asv$9tt$1@kermit.esat.net...
But you understand that "why not?" isn't good enough for us?
For most atheists, it's not enough to show that god *could*
exist, you would have to convince us that he actually *does*
exist.
Leaving the word God aside for a moment, there is obviously some force -
call it whatever you like - that causes the universe to evolve, exist and
consiousness to exist so we can have this discussion now. I choose to call
this God because by reading the Vedic scriptures all this is described and
the laws behind it are gone into in detail and it makes sense. It is vast.
Interesting. What is described? Does it say why
there are atoms? Why is the universe evolving?
--
RB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 07:12:17 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that "Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> did attempt
to escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
But you understand that "why not?" isn't good enough for us?
For most atheists, it's not enough to show that god *could*
exist, you would have to convince us that he actually *does*
exist.
Leaving the word God aside for a moment, there is obviously some force
- call it whatever you like - that causes the universe to evolve,
exist and consiousness to exist so we can have this discussion now. I
choose to call this God because by reading the Vedic scriptures all
this is described and the laws behind it are gone into in detail and
it makes sense. It is vast. You can call it what you like.
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 07:30:31 PM |
|
|
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 05:49:55 AM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 05:56:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in news
message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 06:34:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:56:38 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in news
message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
Yes but a big plus for Proctor & Gamble who, one understands from
usenet are manufacturers of cleaning products (amongst other things)
and servants of Satan.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 07:15:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:34:44 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:56:38 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in news
message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
Yes but a big plus for Proctor & Gamble who, one understands from
usenet are manufacturers of cleaning products (amongst other things)
and servants of Satan.
Servants of Satan?
Are there vacancies?
What are the hours like?
Is there a union?
Where do I apply?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 07:14:41 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in news
message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation
of Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
If you've ever seen a child drop ice cream on a sidewalk on a hot day,
you'll have a good idea of what I imagine this would look like!
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
04 Sep 2004 09:12:58 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2004 00:14:41 GMT, Walking on Glass
<walking_on_glass@hotmailNOSPAM.com> in news message
<Xns955ACB35FD84walkingonglasshotmai@195.92.193.157> wrote:
And lo, it came to pass that Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in news
message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation
of Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
If you've ever seen a child drop ice cream on a sidewalk on a hot day,
you'll have a good idea of what I imagine this would look like!
That's a possible ramification. I was thinking more of the electro
weak force slowly dissipating, which would cause the atoms in the
molecules to first get farther apart and then to no longer attract
each other at all. I envision a person becoming translucent, as we
are mostly just empty space to begin with, and then being blown away
by a light breeze. I'm also intrigued by how long consciousness would
continue under this scenario. I would bet that it would last only as
long as the electrochemical signals could bridge the synapses.
But what say, since we are only guessing, we conduct an experiment to
see what actually happens under this scenario? Then we would know.
Maybe Francis would volunteer as a subject and give us feedback from
the decoheree's perspective -- as long as humanly possible, of course.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
04 Sep 2004 12:41:11 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On 4 Sep 2004 00:14:41 GMT, Walking on Glass
<walking_on_glass@hotmailNOSPAM.com> in news message
<Xns955ACB35FD84walkingonglasshotmai@195.92.193.157> wrote:
And lo, it came to pass that Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in
news message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any
equation of Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
If you've ever seen a child drop ice cream on a sidewalk on a hot day,
you'll have a good idea of what I imagine this would look like!
That's a possible ramification. I was thinking more of the electro
weak force slowly dissipating, which would cause the atoms in the
molecules to first get farther apart and then to no longer attract
each other at all.
Ah, the technical version instead of the comedy version!
I envision a person becoming translucent, as we
are mostly just empty space to begin with, and then being blown away
by a light breeze. I'm also intrigued by how long consciousness would
continue under this scenario. I would bet that it would last only as
long as the electrochemical signals could bridge the synapses.
I agree, if elctromagnetism became weaker, there'd be a point at which a
brain could no longer function.
But what say, since we are only guessing, we conduct an experiment to
see what actually happens under this scenario? Then we would know.
Maybe Francis would volunteer as a subject and give us feedback from
the decoheree's perspective -- as long as humanly possible, of course.
I certainly wouldn't want to volunteer for it! I'd guess that the
decoheree would lose all their memories and personality?
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
04 Sep 2004 02:03:06 PM |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2004 17:41:11 GMT, Walking on Glass
<walking_on_glass@hotmailNOSPAM.com> in news message
<Xns955ABE217B8C5walkingonglasshotmai@195.92.193.157> wrote:
And lo, it came to pass that Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On 4 Sep 2004 00:14:41 GMT, Walking on Glass
<walking_on_glass@hotmailNOSPAM.com> in news message
<Xns955ACB35FD84walkingonglasshotmai@195.92.193.157> wrote:
And lo, it came to pass that Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> did attempt to
escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:49:55 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> in
news message <uvigj0ll3vjkg48j7kno4neb0nqnegf49f@4ax.com> wrote:
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> said:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any
equation of Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
We made it up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It seems important to you to believe that. Why?
Because otherwise the atoms in his body would decohere, and that's
very scary.
If you've ever seen a child drop ice cream on a sidewalk on a hot day,
you'll have a good idea of what I imagine this would look like!
That's a possible ramification. I was thinking more of the electro
weak force slowly dissipating, which would cause the atoms in the
molecules to first get farther apart and then to no longer attract
each other at all.
Ah, the technical version instead of the comedy version!
But I liked the visual your version engendered.
I envision a person becoming translucent, as we
are mostly just empty space to begin with, and then being blown away
by a light breeze. I'm also intrigued by how long consciousness would
continue under this scenario. I would bet that it would last only as
long as the electrochemical signals could bridge the synapses.
I agree, if elctromagnetism became weaker, there'd be a point at which a
brain could no longer function.
Francis believes that the brain is just the interface between the
soul, which does the thinking, and the body so this shouldn't be a
sticking point with him.
But what say, since we are only guessing, we conduct an experiment to
see what actually happens under this scenario? Then we would know.
Maybe Francis would volunteer as a subject and give us feedback from
the decoheree's perspective -- as long as humanly possible, of course.
I certainly wouldn't want to volunteer for it! I'd guess that the
decoheree would lose all their memories and personality?
Well, since Francis believes that the soul survives the destruction of
the physical body, I don't think that he would have any objections to
the experiment. In fact, it would be a good test of his faith.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Reality doesn't alter itself to conform to our beliefs. --
Gregory A. Greenman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 12:55:11 PM |
|
|
"Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message news:<ch8e5f$atq$1@kermit.esat.net>...
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
And if God created physics, who then made God? At some
point came a begining, there is no evidence or reason to
suppose that the very first thing was a rather complicated
being known as God.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
It is unsupported assertions like this that
make the difference between religion and science.
Human beings have found science useful for
increasing their numbers and improving their
lives. Religious is useful for controling
people and extracting money.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 07:10:23 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that "Francis" <nospam@nospam.none> did attempt
to escape burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
How do you know that it didn't? There is no known reason that the laws of
physics we know couldn't "bootstrap" themselves into existence.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
Here's a hint: "Law" in scientific terms means something very different
to "Law" in legal/common usage.
Another hint: Your statement is an unsupported assertion. While I am sure
you believe it, you have not given us any evidence, so there is no reason
why I should accept your statement.
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
02 Sep 2004 08:33:57 PM |
|
|
Francis <nospam@nospam.none> wrote:
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
God is the creator and enforcer of this law.
I don't see any evidence for any of your statements - just
baseless claims. Why would we accept what you say without
evidence?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 09:55:01 AM |
|
|
Francis wrote:
I call it Physics. And you won't find a "God term" in any equation of
Physics...
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
You state that as a fact rather than a belief. How do
you know it didn't make itself up?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 09:54:22 AM |
|
|
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
You state that as a fact rather than a belief. How do
you know it didn't make itself up?
I have no experience in life of things making themselves up. I don't see why
scientifically the world, the most complex of all things, would be the
exception. Vedic scripture gives a full picture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 11:04:15 AM |
|
|
Francis wrote:
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
You state that as a fact rather than a belief. How do
you know it didn't make itself up?
I have no experience in life of things making themselves up.
But your experience of things that happen IN the universe
is not necessarily applicable to the universe itself.
I don't see why
scientifically the world, the most complex of all things, would be the
exception.
Why do you find it hard to accept that the universe is
an exception, only to then claim that god is an exception?
I say the universe has no cause. You say it was caused by god,
who has no cause. We BOTH accept that things can exist without
cause, you just like to go one step further back before you
accept it. I don't see why that step is necessary.
It's as if somebody said to you "yes, all things have a cause
and god is the cause of the universe. And since all things
have a cause, god must also have a cause - "super-god". Super-god,
however, is just so damned mystical and magical that he has
no cause.
You would argue (I presume) that god is already so mystical
that he needs no cause, so there is no need to assume that
super-god exists. Similarly, I say that since you accept that
uncaused things can exist, why not assume that the universe
itself is an uncaused thing? It's a simpler explanation of
the facts, is it not?
Vedic scripture gives a full picture.
That may be, but what reason is there to suppose the the
full picture it gives is the correct one?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 11:13:55 AM |
|
|
I have no experience in life of things making themselves up.
But your experience of things that happen IN the universe
is not necessarily applicable to the universe itself.
Why make that radical leap when everything else is not that way?
I don't see why
scientifically the world, the most complex of all things, would be the
exception.
Why do you find it hard to accept that the universe is
an exception, only to then claim that god is an exception?
God is not part of the universe, which is made of matter. The universe is
hardly going to not follow its own rules?
I say the universe has no cause. You say it was caused by god,
who has no cause. We BOTH accept that things can exist without
cause, you just like to go one step further back before you
accept it. I don't see why that step is necessary.
The material world is made of matter and has no consciousness.
It's as if somebody said to you "yes, all things have a cause
and god is the cause of the universe. And since all things
have a cause, god must also have a cause - "super-god". Super-god,
however, is just so damned mystical and magical that he has
no cause.
You would argue (I presume) that god is already so mystical
that he needs no cause, so there is no need to assume that
super-god exists. Similarly, I say that since you accept that
uncaused things can exist, why not assume that the universe
itself is an uncaused thing? It's a simpler explanation of
the facts, is it not?
You obviously have no answer to the question of where the universe comes
from. As I have explained I accept the theory of the varied dimensions of
the spiritual world and the material world.
Vedic scripture gives a full picture.
That may be, but what reason is there to suppose the the
full picture it gives is the correct one?
Becase it is vast, accurate even in accordance with modern discovery and is
the only such complete presentation of the subject I know to exist in the
world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 12:23:06 PM |
|
|
Francis wrote:
I have no experience in life of things making themselves up.
But your experience of things that happen IN the universe
is not necessarily applicable to the universe itself.
Why make that radical leap when everything else is not that way?
What radical leap? You are the onemaking the leap in
assuming that the rules of the universe apply to the
universe itself.
I say the universe has no cause. You say it was caused by god,
who has no cause. We BOTH accept that things can exist without
cause, you just like to go one step further back before you
accept it. I don't see why that step is necessary.
The material world is made of matter and has no consciousness.
Neither of which address the point.
It's as if somebody said to you "yes, all things have a cause
and god is the cause of the universe. And since all things
have a cause, god must also have a cause - "super-god". Super-god,
however, is just so damned mystical and magical that he has
no cause.
You would argue (I presume) that god is already so mystical
that he needs no cause, so there is no need to assume that
super-god exists. Similarly, I say that since you accept that
uncaused things can exist, why not assume that the universe
itself is an uncaused thing? It's a simpler explanation of
the facts, is it not?
You obviously have no answer to the question of where the universe comes
from.
And you have no answers to the question of where god
came from. Which puts me in the superior position,
since I only have the universe to explain and you
have the universe and god.
As I have explained I accept the theory of the varied dimensions of
the spiritual world and the material world.
Vedic scripture gives a full picture.
That may be, but what reason is there to suppose the the
full picture it gives is the correct one?
Becase it is vast,
So am I, but nobody puts any faith in me because of it.
accurate even in accordance with modern discovery
Care to cite a single example? Pick the most clear-cut
case of your book revealing a modern discovery.
and is
the only such complete presentation of the subject I know to exist in the
world.
In that belief, you are in a minority. It's what most
people think about their holy book.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
04 Sep 2004 09:09:30 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:13:55 +0100 in episode
<cha5el$qdc$1@kermit.esat.net> we saw our hero "Francis"
<nospam@nospam.none>:
Becase it is vast, accurate even in accordance with modern discovery and
is the only such complete presentation of the subject I know to exist in
the world.
Everybody says that about their favorite holy text...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Important Question |
03 Sep 2004 03:29:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:04:15 +0100, Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org>
wrote:
Francis wrote:
Physics is a law with certain rules. It didn't make itself up.
You state that as a fact rather than a belief. How do
you know it didn't make itself up?
I have no experience in life of things making themselves up.
But your experience of things that happen IN the universe
is not necessarily applicable to the universe itself.
I don't see why
scientifically the world, the most complex of all things, would be the
exception.
Why do you find it hard to accept that the universe is
an exception, only to then claim that god is an exception?
I say the universe has no cause. You say it was caused by god,
who has no cause. We BOTH accept that things can exist without
cause, you just like to go one step further back before you
accept it. I don't see why that step is necessary.
It's as if somebody said to you "yes, all things have a cause
and god is the cause of the universe. And since all things
have a cause, god must also have a cause - "super-god". Super-god,
however, is just so damned mystical and magical that he has
no cause.
You would argue (I presume) that god is already so mystical
that he needs no cause, so there is no need to assume that
super-god exists. Similarly, I say that since you accept that
uncaused things can exist, why not assume that the universe
itself is an uncaused thing? It's a simpler explanation of
the facts, is it not?
Vedic scripture gives a full picture.
That may be, but what reason is there to suppose the the
full picture it gives is the correct one?
LOL that's because social beings like humans want a person rather than
a thing behind it all. I think it's genetic to want to insist on a
someone rather than a something.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION
Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life...
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
| OT but important question
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Good_morning_or_good_evening_de?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?pending_upon_your_location=2E_I_want_to_ask?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?_you_the_most_important_question_of_your_?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?life=2E_Your_joy_or_sorrow_for_all_eternity?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?_de
An Important Question
Re: Important question.
Ta
O.T. Important arthritis, over the counter drugs and weight lifting question.
|
|
|
