Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time?


 Religions > Atheism > Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 5

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Idoso"
Date: 30 Sep 2006 06:58:25 AM
Object: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time?
Just as we no longer need a moral code, neither do we need religion,"
declared Friedrich Nietzsche. "Religion is the dream of the human
mind," asserted Ludwig Feuerbach. And Karl Marx, whose writings would
have profound influence in coming decades, boldly stated: "I want to
increase the mind's freedom from the chains of religion."
The roots were in place and sprouting long before the 19th century
began. Surprisingly, the modern growth of atheism was fostered by the
religions of Christendom! How so? Because of their corruption, these
religious institutions provoked a great deal of disillusionment and
protest.
Dissatisfied with religion, many of these philosophers became deists;
they believed in God but maintained that he had no interest in man. A
few became outspoken atheists, such as philosopher Paul Henri Thiry
Holbach, who claimed that religion was a "source of divisions,
madness, and crimes." As the years passed, many more grew weary of
Christendom and shared Holbach's sentiments.
How ironic that Christendom spurred on the growth of atheism! "The
Churches were the soil of atheism," writes theology professor Michael
J. Buckley. "The Western conscience found itself deeply scandalized
and disgusted by confessional religions. The Churches and the sects had
devastated Europe, engineered massacres, demanded religious resistance
or revolution, attempted to excommunicate or to depose monarchs."
Whether they have observed the hypocrisy of religion or not, many
atheists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in
the world. Simone de Beauvoir once said: "It was easier for me to
think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all
the contradictions of the world."
The Contrast of True Religion
In 1803, United States president Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To the
corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself." Yes, there is a difference
between Christendom and Christianity. Many of Christendom's tenets
are founded upon the traditions of men. In contrast, true Christianity
bases its beliefs solely upon the Bible. Thus, Paul wrote to the
first-century Colossians that they should acquire "accurate
knowledge," "wisdom," and "spiritual
comprehension."-Colossians 1:9, 10.
This is what we should expect of genuine Christians, for Jesus
commanded his followers: "Make disciples of people of all the
nations, baptizing them . . . , teaching them to observe all the things
I have commanded you."-Matthew 28:19, 20.
Today, Jehovah's Witnesses are carrying out this command in 235 lands
around the world. Moreover, through a home Bible study program, they
are presently helping persons to 'observe all the things Jesus
commanded.'
This educational program is having far-reaching results. It brings true
enlightenment, for it is based, not on man's thoughts, but on God's
wisdom. (Proverbs 4:18) Furthermore, it is helping people from all
nations and races to do something that man's "Enlightenment"
could never accomplish-to put on a "new personality" that enables
them to develop genuine love for one another.-Colossians 3:9, 10.
True religion is triumphing in our 21th century. It does not deny
God-neither his existence nor his authority. We invite you to see
this for yourself by visiting Jehovah's Witnesses at one of their
Kingdom Halls.
If you want more information about the Bible-based message that
Jehovah's Witnesses preach, feel free to contact them at the address
below.
http://www.watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm
www.watchtower.org
.

User: "Josef Balluch"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 04:49:41 PM
"Idoso" <driekous@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159599505.088903.188770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
... that if you are dissatisfied with Christendom then you should
become a Jehovah's Witness.
Excuse me a minute while I bust a gut laughing.
Regards,
Josef
.

User: "Precision"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 01 Oct 2006 03:34:12 AM
"Idoso" <driekous@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159599505.088903.188770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Just as we no longer need a moral code, neither do we need religion,"
declared Friedrich Nietzsche. "Religion is the dream of the human
mind," asserted Ludwig Feuerbach. And Karl Marx, whose writings would
have profound influence in coming decades, boldly stated: "I want to
increase the mind's freedom from the chains of religion."

The roots were in place and sprouting long before the 19th century
began. Surprisingly, the modern growth of atheism was fostered by the
religions of Christendom! How so? Because of their corruption, these
religious institutions provoked a great deal of disillusionment and
protest.

Dissatisfied with religion, many of these philosophers became deists;
they believed in God but maintained that he had no interest in man. A
few became outspoken atheists, such as philosopher Paul Henri Thiry
Holbach, who claimed that religion was a "source of divisions,
madness, and crimes." As the years passed, many more grew weary of
Christendom and shared Holbach's sentiments.

How ironic that Christendom spurred on the growth of atheism! "The
Churches were the soil of atheism," writes theology professor Michael
J. Buckley. "The Western conscience found itself deeply scandalized
and disgusted by confessional religions. The Churches and the sects had
devastated Europe, engineered massacres, demanded religious resistance
or revolution, attempted to excommunicate or to depose monarchs."

Whether they have observed the hypocrisy of religion or not, many
atheists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in
the world. Simone de Beauvoir once said: "It was easier for me to
think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all
the contradictions of the world."

The Contrast of True Religion

In 1803, United States president Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To the
corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself." Yes, there is a difference
between Christendom and Christianity. Many of Christendom's tenets
are founded upon the traditions of men. In contrast, true Christianity
bases its beliefs solely upon the Bible. Thus, Paul wrote to the
first-century Colossians that they should acquire "accurate
knowledge," "wisdom," and "spiritual
comprehension."-Colossians 1:9, 10.

This is what we should expect of genuine Christians, for Jesus
commanded his followers: "Make disciples of people of all the
nations, baptizing them . . . , teaching them to observe all the things
I have commanded you."-Matthew 28:19, 20.

Today, Jehovah's Witnesses are carrying out this command in 235 lands
around the world. Moreover, through a home Bible study program, they
are presently helping persons to 'observe all the things Jesus
commanded.'

This educational program is having far-reaching results. It brings true
enlightenment, for it is based, not on man's thoughts, but on God's
wisdom. (Proverbs 4:18) Furthermore, it is helping people from all
nations and races to do something that man's "Enlightenment"
could never accomplish-to put on a "new personality" that enables
them to develop genuine love for one another.-Colossians 3:9, 10.

True religion is triumphing in our 21th century. It does not deny
God-neither his existence nor his authority. We invite you to see
this for yourself by visiting Jehovah's Witnesses at one of their
Kingdom Halls.

If you want more information about the Bible-based message that
Jehovah's Witnesses preach, feel free to contact them at the address
below.



http://www.watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm




www.watchtower.org

You've written a brilliant post that cuts to the very core of atheism and
its roots in disillusionment and hopelessness caused by false religion.
I only wish atheists reading this message would take our challenge to call
their local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses (in local phone listings),
find out the meeting times and actually attend a meeting! Then ask to speak
to an Elder before or after the meeting and don't be shy... grill them about
your concerns and doubts about God. Discover the TRUTH that Jehovah's
Witnesses can provide a spiritual refuge and logical answers to questions
about God's existence and involvement with humanity. Many churches have
denied atheists these basic truths. No wonder they don't believe in God!
Those who take up this challenge are encouraged to report back their
experiences and what they learned at the meeting and by asking an Elder in
the congregation questions about God's existence and plans for our future.
.
User: "William T. Goat, Esq."

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 05 Oct 2006 07:51:29 PM
Precision wrote:


You've written a brilliant post that cuts to the very core of atheism and
its roots in disillusionment and hopelessness caused by false religion.

I only wish atheists reading this message would take our challenge to call
their local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses (in local phone listings),
find out the meeting times and actually attend a meeting! Then ask to speak
to an Elder before or after the meeting and don't be shy... grill them about
your concerns and doubts about God.

You mean, you want us to rely on human understanding about God? The
Elders are humans, aren't they?
--Billy
.

User: "Tim DeLaney"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 02 Oct 2006 01:51:13 AM
Precision wrote:

"Idoso" <driekous@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159599505.088903.188770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Just as we no longer need a moral code, neither do we need religion,"
declared Friedrich Nietzsche. "Religion is the dream of the human
mind," asserted Ludwig Feuerbach. And Karl Marx, whose writings would
have profound influence in coming decades, boldly stated: "I want to
increase the mind's freedom from the chains of religion."

The roots were in place and sprouting long before the 19th century
began. Surprisingly, the modern growth of atheism was fostered by the
religions of Christendom! How so? Because of their corruption, these
religious institutions provoked a great deal of disillusionment and
protest.

Dissatisfied with religion, many of these philosophers became deists;
they believed in God but maintained that he had no interest in man. A
few became outspoken atheists, such as philosopher Paul Henri Thiry
Holbach, who claimed that religion was a "source of divisions,
madness, and crimes." As the years passed, many more grew weary of
Christendom and shared Holbach's sentiments.

How ironic that Christendom spurred on the growth of atheism! "The
Churches were the soil of atheism," writes theology professor Michael
J. Buckley. "The Western conscience found itself deeply scandalized
and disgusted by confessional religions. The Churches and the sects had
devastated Europe, engineered massacres, demanded religious resistance
or revolution, attempted to excommunicate or to depose monarchs."

Whether they have observed the hypocrisy of religion or not, many
atheists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in
the world. Simone de Beauvoir once said: "It was easier for me to
think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all
the contradictions of the world."

The Contrast of True Religion

In 1803, United States president Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To the
corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself." Yes, there is a difference
between Christendom and Christianity. Many of Christendom's tenets
are founded upon the traditions of men. In contrast, true Christianity
bases its beliefs solely upon the Bible. Thus, Paul wrote to the
first-century Colossians that they should acquire "accurate
knowledge," "wisdom," and "spiritual
comprehension."-Colossians 1:9, 10.

This is what we should expect of genuine Christians, for Jesus
commanded his followers: "Make disciples of people of all the
nations, baptizing them . . . , teaching them to observe all the things
I have commanded you."-Matthew 28:19, 20.

Today, Jehovah's Witnesses are carrying out this command in 235 lands
around the world. Moreover, through a home Bible study program, they
are presently helping persons to 'observe all the things Jesus
commanded.'

This educational program is having far-reaching results. It brings true
enlightenment, for it is based, not on man's thoughts, but on God's
wisdom. (Proverbs 4:18) Furthermore, it is helping people from all
nations and races to do something that man's "Enlightenment"
could never accomplish-to put on a "new personality" that enables
them to develop genuine love for one another.-Colossians 3:9, 10.

True religion is triumphing in our 21th century. It does not deny
God-neither his existence nor his authority. We invite you to see
this for yourself by visiting Jehovah's Witnesses at one of their
Kingdom Halls.

If you want more information about the Bible-based message that
Jehovah's Witnesses preach, feel free to contact them at the address
below.



http://www.watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm




www.watchtower.org



You've written a brilliant post that cuts to the very core of atheism and
its roots in disillusionment and hopelessness caused by false religion.

I only wish atheists reading this message would take our challenge to call
their local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses (in local phone listings),
find out the meeting times and actually attend a meeting! Then ask to speak
to an Elder before or after the meeting and don't be shy... grill them about
your concerns and doubts about God. Discover the TRUTH that Jehovah's
Witnesses can provide a spiritual refuge and logical answers to questions
about God's existence and involvement with humanity. Many churches have
denied atheists these basic truths. No wonder they don't believe in God!

Those who take up this challenge are encouraged to report back their
experiences and what they learned at the meeting and by asking an Elder in
the congregation questions about God's existence and plans for our future.

You cannot possibly imagine how pathetic and futile this sounds to the
non-believer.
Tim
.
User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?="

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 02 Oct 2006 05:38:52 AM
"Tim DeLaney" <delaney.timothy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1159753873.010092.14600@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Precision wrote:


Those who take up this challenge are encouraged to report back their
experiences and what they learned at the meeting and by asking an Elder
in
the congregation questions about God's existence and plans for our
future.


You cannot possibly imagine how pathetic and futile this sounds to the
non-believer.

It sounds worse than pathetic, it sounds borderline insane.........
--
SA......
THE LIST OF AMAZING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES'
CLAIMS, BELIEFS & PREDICTIONS
Prepared by "PB" may be found at the following websites:-
http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~{@
.
User: "Mike"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 02 Oct 2006 05:59:33 AM
~ S=E4bl=EB ~ wrote:

"Tim DeLaney" <delaney.timothy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1159753873.010092.14600@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Precision wrote:


Those who take up this challenge are encouraged to report back their
experiences and what they learned at the meeting and by asking an Elder
in
the congregation questions about God's existence and plans for our
future.


You cannot possibly imagine how pathetic and futile this sounds to the
non-believer.


It sounds worse than pathetic, it sounds borderline insane.........

Now, now, you're using your brain too much. If only you would turn off
your brain and try to cultivate a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart,
faith will come. It is your powers of reason that cause you to reject
God. If your reason tells you that 2+2=3D4, but your heart tells you
that 2+2=3D3, isn't it better to go with your heart? Perhaps an Elder
could explain this better than I can.
P=2ES. You probably realize that I'm being sarcastic here. But the JWs
are sometimes so incredibly DUMB it would be hard to be absolutely
certain without this clarification. They are beyond caricature.
.
User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6berta_M=E4rie_Fern=E4ndez?="

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 02 Oct 2006 04:08:23 PM
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1159768773.551650.301720@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
~ Säblë ~ wrote:

"Tim DeLaney" <delaney.timothy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1159753873.010092.14600@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Precision wrote:


Those who take up this challenge are encouraged to report back their
experiences and what they learned at the meeting and by asking an Elder
in
the congregation questions about God's existence and plans for our
future.


You cannot possibly imagine how pathetic and futile this sounds to the
non-believer.


It sounds worse than pathetic, it sounds borderline insane.........

Now, now, you're using your brain too much. If only you would turn off
your brain and try to cultivate a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart,
faith will come. It is your powers of reason that cause you to reject
God. If your reason tells you that 2+2=4, but your heart tells you
that 2+2=3, isn't it better to go with your heart? Perhaps an Elder
could explain this better than I can.
P.S. You probably realize that I'm being sarcastic here. But the JWs
are sometimes so incredibly DUMB it would be hard to be absolutely
certain without this clarification. They are beyond caricature.
Jehovah Witness elders = Mumcha Mafia. Watchtower thugs. They keep the
slaves in line using intimidation and threats. See how they threaten and try
to intimidate those on their newsgroup. Think how much worse it's gotta be
in person.
.





User: "Larry Heath"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 08:05:57 PM
"Idoso" <driekous@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159599505.088903.188770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Snip
YES!
.

User: "Mark T wh@the9912543647570067574651926"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 07:21:24 AM
"Idoso" wrote:

Whether they have observed the hypocrisy of religion or not, many
atheists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in
the world.

Therein is the crunch. The problem of evil has not been solved by anyone.
###################################################
Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he
both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor
willing? Then why call him god? - Epicurus (341-270 BCE)
##################################################
Carl Jung's "Answer To Job" states the problem in relation to Christianity
and is the best I have read in this area ... but still not satisfactory.

Simone de Beauvoir

She was a brilliant woman who contributed much to the world.
Her lover, Jean Paul Sartre, proved that theism cannot be true. God cannot
exist. As a result Paul Tillich answered with God as the Ground of all
being. I am more inclined to Tillich's answer than anything else around.
Simply presented in John A T Robinson's "'Honest To God' (SCM, London:
1963)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For in place of a God who is literally or physically 'up there' we have
accepted, as part of our mental furniture, a God who is spiritually or
metaphysically 'out there'. p. 13
[Robinson argues against this theistic concept.]
God, [Paul] Tillich was saying, is not a projection 'out there', an Other
beyond the skies, of whose existence we have to convince ourselves, but the
Ground of our very Being. pp. 22
God is, by definition, ultimate reality. And one cannot argue whether
ultimate reality really exists. One can only ask what ultimate reality is
like ... Thus, the fundamental theological question is not in establishing
the 'existence' of God as a separate entity but in pressing through in
ultimate concern to what Tillich calls 'the ground of our being'.. p. 29
In Tillich's words: The phrase deus sive natura, used by people like Scotus
Eriggena and Spinoza, does not say that God is identical with nature but
that he is identical with the natura naturans, the creative nature, the
creative ground of all natural objects. p. 31
God is not 'out there'. He is in Bonhoeffer's words ' the "beyond" in the
midst of our life', a depth of reality reached ' not on the borders of life
but at its centre', not by any flight of the alone to the alone, but, in
Kierkegaard's fine phrase, by ' a deeper immersion in existence'. For the
word 'God' denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground
and meaning of all our existence. ...Tillich warns us that to make the
necessary transposition, 'you must forget everything traditional that you
have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself.' p. 47
Belief in God is the trust, the well nigh incredible trust, that to give
ourselves to the uttermost in love is not to be confounded but to be
'accepted', that Love is the ground of our being, to which we ultimately
'come home'. ... And the specifically Christian view of the world is
asserting that the final definition of this reality, from which 'nothing can
separate us', since it is the very ground of our being, is 'the love of God
in Christ Jesus our Lord'. p. 49
.... Bonhoeffer insists ... 'The transcendent is not infinitely remote but
close at hand.' p.53
The question of God is the question whether this depth of being is a reality
or an illusion, not whether a Being exists beyond the bright, blue sky, or
anywhere else. Belief in God is a matter of 'what you take seriously
without any reservation', of what for you is ultimate reality. p. 55
Bonhoeffer .. [wrote] ... To be a Christian does not mean to be religious in
a particular way, to cultivate some particular form of asceticism (as a
sinner, penitent or a saint), but to be a man. It is not some religious act
which makes a Christian what he is, but participation in the suffering of
God in the life of the world.' pp. 82-83
.... the beginning is to try to be honest - and to go on from there. p. 141
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

there is a difference between Christendom and Christianity.

As Soren Kierkegaard ( the Father of Existentialism) pointed out.
.
User: "Bill M"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 02:28:01 PM
"Mark T" <wh@the9912543647570067574651926> wrote in message
news:451e1af7@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Idoso" wrote:


Whether they have observed the hypocrisy of religion or not, many
atheists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in
the world.


Therein is the crunch. The problem of evil has not been solved by anyone.

###################################################
Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he
both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor
willing? Then why call him god? - Epicurus (341-270 BCE)
##################################################

There is no god!
Religious types claim that the Universes complexity would need a God creator
and that God always was and always will be. It is just as logical to
conclude the Universe always was. There is physical objective verifiable
evidence for the existence of the Universe. There is absolutely no objective
verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY Gods.
Christian's favorite evidence for the existence of their god is the old
canard that the Universe could not just happen but had to have a
designer/creator.
If it was designed/created by some god, this god has to be even more complex
than the Universe, and using this same logic, would require that god would
also have to have a creator. Who or what created god?
Many religious types claim the 'Intelligent Design' of the Universe is proof
of god.
Intelligent design!? Consider reality. The Universe shows no evidence of
intelligent design! If any real God wanted to create intelligently designed
people he would design humans that did not steal, curse, and kill others,
cause wars or sin in other ways. Why would such an all powerful perfect God
create such imperfect creatures and such a grossly imperfect world??
First, let's look at the human body.
The openings to our breathing air and swallowing food and water are so close
that it often causes choking (and sometimes fatal!) Why aren't there two
separate openings that do not conflict with each other?
The lung design is equally quaint and inefficient. The same tube acts as the
both the entry for life giving oxygen and the exhaust pipe for the spent
air. This is the equivalent of an auto engine designer putting the exhaust
pipe through the carburetor manifold!
And why include a non functioning body organ like the Appendix to, cause
serious problems including death?
Or why create men with useless nipples? And what is the purpose of useless
toenails?
The penis is used to dispose of foul bodily fluids and to deliver wholesome
sperm to fertilize women's eggs for the birth of new humans. Likewise the
female's vagina is used as a sewer line and for delivery of new infants. Is
running a sewer line through the middle of a creation organ logical or
intelligent?
There is no evidence of intelligent design but only for random mutation and
natural selection. If it works it is reproduced. If it doesn't work, it
doesn't survive. If an omniscient God created man he certainly would have
created a more logical and efficient design.
Why does this supposed all powerful creator, all loving and caring
intelligent designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic
Eruptions, Wars, Cancers and thousands of debilitating diseases and serious
body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that afflict man. What is
the purpose of this? Why does he permit millions of both young and old to
starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions of totally
INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor?
There is a parasitic worm in West Africa that bores through the eyes of
children and causes total blindness for the rest of their lives. This is the
work of an all caring and loving god???
Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and
devastating old age and suffer for many years before there suffering is
relieved by death?
Why did this supposedly all powerful and loving creator create things like
sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, poisonous snakes,
stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to kill and eat
other animals to survive?
World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed 250,000 lives; men, women and innocent
children of all religious persuasions. 100,000 of these were totally
innocent children!
The recent earthquake in Pakistan and India killed over 70,000 innocent men,
women and children of many religious persuasions. Over 2,500,000 have been
left homeless to suffer a harsh winter.
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. Approximately two million innocent children die
of starvation and malnutrition each year.
These afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all religious
persuasions INCLUDING PERFECTLY INNOCENT CHILDREN.
This all loving and all caring god also hates perfectly innocent animals and
afflicts them with many painful, debilitating and fatal diseases. Presently
a Mad Cow like disease is infecting millions of Sheep, Deer and Elk. It has
been determined that these wild animals are being infected because infected
animals release the disease causing prions in their urine on the grass which
other grazers then eat. Up to twenty percent of these animals have become
infected with this painful wasting and fatal disease.
Perhaps this loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
he will provide us the eternal joy of peace and happiness in his Heaven
after death?
Is the devil equal to or more powerful than god? If so, then surely the
devil must be god, and therefore god is responsible for evil. If not, then
god allows the devil to exist and do evil, and therefore god is responsible
for evil. Either way, god is responsible for evil.
'If' there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
objective evidence is that, if there is a god creator, he has NO concern
about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
Simone de Beauvoir once said: "It was easier for me to
think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all
the contradictions of the world."
The Christian god belief is about as credible as belief in Santa Claus, The
Wizard of Oz and Aesop's Fables.
The objective evidence is that NO GOD CREATED MAN but quite the contrary;
that MAN CREATED GODS!
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 08:27:52 PM
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:d9vTg.39728$KR1.26644@bignews2.bellsouth.net:


"Mark T" <wh@the9912543647570067574651926> wrote in message
news:451e1af7@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Idoso" wrote:

*snipped* for brevity


Christian's favorite evidence for the existence of their god is the
old canard that the Universe could not just happen but had to have a
designer/creator. If it was designed/created by some god, this god has
to be even more complex than the Universe, and using this same logic,
would require that god would also have to have a creator. Who or what
created god?

I would like to very politely ask a question; it is not one on which I
have an opinion....so any answer will be considered.
Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just as
man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates non-carbon
based life....?
Pangur- who thought of this while reading the entire original post
.
User: "Lucifer"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 10:11:47 PM
Pangur Ban wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:d9vTg.39728$KR1.26644@bignews2.bellsouth.net:


"Mark T" <wh@the9912543647570067574651926> wrote in message
news:451e1af7@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Idoso" wrote:


*snipped* for brevity


Christian's favorite evidence for the existence of their god is the
old canard that the Universe could not just happen but had to have a
designer/creator. If it was designed/created by some god, this god has
to be even more complex than the Universe, and using this same logic,
would require that god would also have to have a creator. Who or what
created god?


I would like to very politely ask a question; it is not one on which I
have an opinion....so any answer will be considered.

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just as
man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates non-carbon
based life....?

Pangur- who thought of this while reading the entire original post

I believe it's adressed in The God Delusion, basically, a high
intelligence is, due to inherent feautures of evolution, a late stage
result, so a god couldn't evolve in the world it created. tis logically
impossible.
Though Phillip Pullman explores some of the ramifications in his epic
His Dark Materials fantasy trilogy.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 30 Sep 2006 11:07:52 PM
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159654307.005759.208420@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:d9vTg.39728$KR1.26644@bignews2.bellsouth.net:


"Mark T" <wh@the9912543647570067574651926> wrote in message
news:451e1af7@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Idoso" wrote:


*snipped* for brevity


Christian's favorite evidence for the existence of their god is the
old canard that the Universe could not just happen but had to have
a designer/creator. If it was designed/created by some god, this
god has to be even more complex than the Universe, and using this
same logic, would require that god would also have to have a
creator. Who or what created god?


I would like to very politely ask a question; it is not one on which
I have an opinion....so any answer will be considered.

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just
as man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates
non-carbon based life....?

Pangur- who thought of this while reading the entire original post


I believe it's adressed in The God Delusion, basically, a high
intelligence is, due to inherent feautures of evolution, a late stage
result, so a god couldn't evolve in the world it created. tis
logically impossible.

I didn't ask that, Lucifer. Btw, thanks for responding. I specified
that a high intelligence evolved first - maybe in another dimension or
in way we can't even yet imagine - and after that created our universe.
My thought was that it would evolve independent of our world which
hadn't even been created. Is that a possibility? Even a very remote
one?
I haven't read The God Delusion, *smile*. Phillip Pullman... will check
Amazon to see if matches my interests in fantasies. Sadly, at present I
am enjoying the vampires and wereanimals of Anite Blake.
Pangur
.
User: "Lucifer"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 01 Oct 2006 06:40:04 PM
Pangur Ban wrote:

"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159654307.005759.208420@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:d9vTg.39728$KR1.26644@bignews2.bellsouth.net:


"Mark T" <wh@the9912543647570067574651926> wrote in message
news:451e1af7@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Idoso" wrote:


*snipped* for brevity


Christian's favorite evidence for the existence of their god is the
old canard that the Universe could not just happen but had to have
a designer/creator. If it was designed/created by some god, this
god has to be even more complex than the Universe, and using this
same logic, would require that god would also have to have a
creator. Who or what created god?


I would like to very politely ask a question; it is not one on which
I have an opinion....so any answer will be considered.

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just
as man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates
non-carbon based life....?

Pangur- who thought of this while reading the entire original post


I believe it's adressed in The God Delusion, basically, a high
intelligence is, due to inherent feautures of evolution, a late stage
result, so a god couldn't evolve in the world it created. tis
logically impossible.


I didn't ask that, Lucifer. Btw, thanks for responding. I specified
that a high intelligence evolved first - maybe in another dimension or
in way we can't even yet imagine - and after that created our universe.
My thought was that it would evolve independent of our world which
hadn't even been created. Is that a possibility? Even a very remote
one?

Fair enough, but I still doubt it, though it makes an interesting idea
for discussion in perhaps a sci-fi novel.


I haven't read The God Delusion, *smile*. Phillip Pullman... will check
Amazon to see if matches my interests in fantasies. Sadly, at present I
am enjoying the vampires and wereanimals of Anite Blake.

Pangur

.

User: "Steve Andrewartha"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 03 Oct 2006 01:13:03 AM
Pangur Ban wrote:

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just
as man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates
non-carbon based life....?

While this is possible, as a theory it doesn't solve any problems, or
explain anything that was previously unexplained.
Having found a creator for this Universe, you now have to find a creator
for the creator and *his* universe.
At this point, Occam's Razor kicks in.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 03 Oct 2006 02:30:01 AM
Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4521b914$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just
as man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates
non-carbon based life....?


While this is possible, as a theory it doesn't solve any problems, or
explain anything that was previously unexplained.

Having found a creator for this Universe, you now have to find a
creator for the creator and *his* universe.

Uh, did you take note of the word, "evolved"? Not created.....as I
think evolution is responsible for human existence.....why could an
entity not have evolved? Not saying one did.. just an idea for
speculation.
Pangur
.
User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 09 Oct 2006 11:08:25 PM
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:Xns9850D08671468PangurBan.worldnetat@63.218.45.20:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4521b914$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator evolved.....just
as man did....and then created the universe? If one postulates
non-carbon based life....?


While this is possible, as a theory it doesn't solve any problems, or
explain anything that was previously unexplained.

Having found a creator for this Universe, you now have to find a
creator for the creator and *his* universe.


Uh, did you take note of the word, "evolved"? Not created.....as I
think evolution is responsible for human existence.....why could an
entity not have evolved? Not saying one did.. just an idea for
speculation.

Pangur


The problem is that there are many things that are interesting ideas for
speculation (or SF stories;-)). When you want to procede to check that the
speculations have some correspondance to reality is where things come
unstuck. At this time we have no obvious way to verify this speculation,
unless of course you have a concrete suggestion. All attempts along these
lines that I have seen so far boil down to appeal to ignorance fallacy,
special pleading, or both.
Klazmon.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 10 Oct 2006 12:08:13 AM
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
news:Xns98587B7FAF94FKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6:

Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:Xns9850D08671468PangurBan.worldnetat@63.218.45.20:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4521b914$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Could it be possible that the god/designer/creator
evolved.....just as man did....and then created the universe? If
one postulates non-carbon based life....?


While this is possible, as a theory it doesn't solve any problems,
or explain anything that was previously unexplained.

Having found a creator for this Universe, you now have to find a
creator for the creator and *his* universe.


Uh, did you take note of the word, "evolved"? Not created.....as I
think evolution is responsible for human existence.....why could an
entity not have evolved? Not saying one did.. just an idea for
speculation.

Pangur


The problem is that there are many things that are interesting ideas
for speculation (or SF stories;-)).

I have been a sci-fi fan since the main theme was going to the moon.
Watching sci-fi writers move further into the solar system and then into
deep space to keep ahead of scientific advances has been great fun.

When you want to procede to check
that the speculations have some correspondance to reality is where
things come unstuck. At this time we have no obvious way to verify
this speculation, unless of course you have a concrete suggestion.

Nope. No suggestions. I have nowhere near the knowledge. The
discussion was just for fun - speculation, postulation, etc.

All attempts along these lines that I have seen so far boil down to
appeal to ignorance fallacy, special pleading, or both.

Fun was fun - nothing more.
Pangur
.


User: "Steve Andrewartha"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 03 Oct 2006 03:18:37 AM
Pangur Ban wrote:

Uh, did you take note of the word, "evolved"? Not created.....as I
think evolution is responsible for human existence.....why could an
entity not have evolved? Not saying one did.. just an idea for
speculation.

My apologies - I did miss that the evolving part was the point of your
post. But while the idea is a possibility (as I said) so are an infinite
number of other ideas. To be a useful theory, it has to explain
something not already explained by a simpler one.
The whole Cosmological Argument is motivated by a perceived need to
provide the universe with a beginning, and the issue often overlooked or
glossed over by theists is the fact that if everything needs a beginning
then so does God.
None of that changes if God evolved over some period of time. He still
has to have evolved from some beginning.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 03 Oct 2006 01:53:11 PM
Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4521d681$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Uh, did you take note of the word, "evolved"? Not created.....as I
think evolution is responsible for human existence.....why could an
entity not have evolved? Not saying one did.. just an idea for
speculation.


My apologies - I did miss that the evolving part was the point of your
post.

Apology noted...but unnecessary. I knew from your reply that the
"evolved" had not registered. *smile*

But while the idea is a possibility (as I said) so are an infinite
number of other ideas. To be a useful theory, it has to explain
something not already explained by a simpler one.

Yes, this I understand. As the theory of evolution is already well on
its way to being proven, could it not apply to a creator also? I think
your "simpler theory" is that a creator does not exist, yes?
Folks in the Middle Ages had the theory that life was spontaneously
created; later knowledge proved the theory was incorrect though it was
a very simple theory. It was replaced by a more complex one...leading
eventually to the very complex theory of evolution as an explanation of
all life.
I see the possibility of a simple theory being replaced by a more
complex one. A possibility - nothing more.


The whole Cosmological Argument is motivated by a perceived need to
provide the universe with a beginning,

I am not current on the "Big Bang" idea; has it been disproved? That
is a theory which provided the universe with a beginning, did it not?


and the issue often overlooked or
glossed over by theists is the fact that if everything needs a
beginning then so does God.

Agreed. I postulated one theory....not in seriousness... but as a
thought to be explored. I am still exploring it.... for amusement and
perhaps knowledge.


None of that changes if God evolved over some period of time. He still
has to have evolved from some beginning.

Life on this planet evolved from (as I understand) a primordial soup of
chemicals. The beginning of life was chance, yes? Could not an entity
have evolved in some as yet unknown way not involving matter which was
later created by this entity? Obviously no proof or evidence of this
exists; it is no more than an exercise in thinking.
Pangur - nonchristian theist

.
User: "Steve Andrewartha"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 04 Oct 2006 01:49:15 AM
Pangur Ban wrote:

Yes, this I understand. As the theory of evolution is already well on
its way to being proven, could it not apply to a creator also? I think
your "simpler theory" is that a creator does not exist, yes?

Not necessarily. My point is simply that an evolving god is more complex
than a non-evolving god, while explaining no more.

Folks in the Middle Ages had the theory that life was spontaneously
created; later knowledge proved the theory was incorrect though it was
a very simple theory. It was replaced by a more complex one...leading
eventually to the very complex theory of evolution as an explanation of
all life.

Mm - I don't regard the idea that life occurs spontaneously as a theory
of how life is created. It's the absence of a theory.

I see the possibility of a simple theory being replaced by a more
complex one. A possibility - nothing more.

And I acknowledge the possibility. But if we pointlessly indulge
ourselves with the consideration of the infinite number of possibilities
out there, our fruitful thought would be infinitely diluted, and our
knowledge would stop advancing.

I am not current on the "Big Bang" idea; has it been disproved? That
is a theory which provided the universe with a beginning, did it not?

No. The Big Bang theory has recently gained support following the COBE
satellite experiment, but it's not a theory about Creation.
It states that at one time the universe was a singularity which
underwent a subsequent period of rapid expansion. We have no information
about what, if anything, existed prior to that event.
Even if the Big Bang was the universe's first event, the situation is
still that we don't know what, if anything, caused it. And not knowing
the answer to any question does not mean that the answer is God.

Life on this planet evolved from (as I understand) a primordial soup of
chemicals. The beginning of life was chance, yes? Could not an entity
have evolved in some as yet unknown way not involving matter which was
later created by this entity? Obviously no proof or evidence of this
exists; it is no more than an exercise in thinking.

Sure. There are lots of fanciful models of God and the Universe out
there to keep you entertained if that's your bent.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 04 Oct 2006 02:02:24 PM
Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:45231310$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Yes, this I understand. As the theory of evolution is already well
on its way to being proven, could it not apply to a creator also? I
think your "simpler theory" is that a creator does not exist, yes?


Not necessarily. My point is simply that an evolving god is more
complex than a non-evolving god, while explaining no more.

Except an evolving god (if one existed) would answer the question of
"Who created god?".


Folks in the Middle Ages had the theory that life was spontaneously
created; later knowledge proved the theory was incorrect though it
was a very simple theory. It was replaced by a more complex
one...leading eventually to the very complex theory of evolution as
an explanation of all life.


Mm - I don't regard the idea that life occurs spontaneously as a
theory of how life is created. It's the absence of a theory.

Abiogenesis - theory of the spontaneous generation of life from
non-living sources). ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


I see the possibility of a simple theory being replaced by a more
complex one. A possibility - nothing more.


And I acknowledge the possibility. But if we pointlessly indulge
ourselves with the consideration of the infinite number of
possibilities out there, our fruitful thought would be infinitely
diluted, and our knowledge would stop advancing.

However, by considering a number of possibilities (not an infinite
number) many discoveries in science, medicine, technology, etc. have
been made. Questioning and considering possible alternatives leads (not
always but often) to advances. If one does not question and consider
possibilities, nothing advances.


I am not current on the "Big Bang" idea; has it been disproved?
That is a theory which provided the universe with a beginning, did it
not?


No. The Big Bang theory has recently gained support following the COBE
satellite experiment, but it's not a theory about Creation.

It states that at one time the universe was a singularity which
underwent a subsequent period of rapid expansion. We have no
information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event.

No information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event
allows one to consider possibilities. Doesn't prove anything, but keeps
the mind open. One possibility could eventually be proven to be the
correct one as more information is added.


Even if the Big Bang was the universe's first event, the situation is
still that we don't know what, if anything, caused it. And not knowing
the answer to any question does not mean that the answer is God.

Doesn't mean a creator isn't the answer either. *smile*

Life on this planet evolved from (as I understand) a primordial soup
of chemicals. The beginning of life was chance, yes? Could not an
entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not involving matter
which was later created by this entity? Obviously no proof or
evidence of this exists; it is no more than an exercise in thinking.


Sure. There are lots of fanciful models of God and the Universe out
there to keep you entertained if that's your bent.

No. I have my theist beliefs....I do not need to examine other models
as I have already done so in the past. Expanding this discussion to
"infininte possibilities" and "models" is counterproductive. I have
been discussing ONE (emphasis not yelling) possibility.
Pangur - who enjoys this discussion; thank you.
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 04 Oct 2006 06:37:31 PM
Pangur Ban wrote:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:45231310$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Yes, this I understand. As the theory of evolution is already well
on its way to being proven, could it not apply to a creator also? I
think your "simpler theory" is that a creator does not exist, yes?


Not necessarily. My point is simply that an evolving god is more
complex than a non-evolving god, while explaining no more.


Except an evolving god (if one existed) would answer the question of
"Who created god?".


Folks in the Middle Ages had the theory that life was spontaneously
created; later knowledge proved the theory was incorrect though it
was a very simple theory. It was replaced by a more complex
one...leading eventually to the very complex theory of evolution as
an explanation of all life.


Mm - I don't regard the idea that life occurs spontaneously as a
theory of how life is created. It's the absence of a theory.


Abiogenesis - theory of the spontaneous generation of life from
non-living sources). ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


I see the possibility of a simple theory being replaced by a more
complex one. A possibility - nothing more.


And I acknowledge the possibility. But if we pointlessly indulge
ourselves with the consideration of the infinite number of
possibilities out there, our fruitful thought would be infinitely
diluted, and our knowledge would stop advancing.


However, by considering a number of possibilities (not an infinite
number) many discoveries in science, medicine, technology, etc. have
been made. Questioning and considering possible alternatives leads (not
always but often) to advances. If one does not question and consider
possibilities, nothing advances.


I am not current on the "Big Bang" idea; has it been disproved?
That is a theory which provided the universe with a beginning, did it
not?


No. The Big Bang theory has recently gained support following the COBE
satellite experiment, but it's not a theory about Creation.

It states that at one time the universe was a singularity which
underwent a subsequent period of rapid expansion. We have no
information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event.


No information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event
allows one to consider possibilities. Doesn't prove anything, but keeps
the mind open. One possibility could eventually be proven to be the
correct one as more information is added.


Even if the Big Bang was the universe's first event, the situation is
still that we don't know what, if anything, caused it. And not knowing
the answer to any question does not mean that the answer is God.


Doesn't mean a creator isn't the answer either. *smile*

Life on this planet evolved from (as I understand) a primordial soup
of chemicals. The beginning of life was chance, yes? Could not an
entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not involving matter
which was later created by this entity? Obviously no proof or
evidence of this exists; it is no more than an exercise in thinking.


Sure. There are lots of fanciful models of God and the Universe out
there to keep you entertained if that's your bent.


No. I have my theist beliefs....I do not need to examine other models
as I have already done so in the past. Expanding this discussion to
"infininte possibilities" and "models" is counterproductive. I have
been discussing ONE (emphasis not yelling) possibility.

Pangur - who enjoys this discussion; thank you.

I've been following this discussion, here's my two cents.
I don't see how anything could evolve in a vaccuum, let alone the most
advanced being imaginable. I don't see how a being could appear without
having parents, as all life we've seen has a parent (with a loose
definition of the word parent). I think your idea (that god evolved),
which I note that you acknowledge as unlikely, is actually impossible,
and violates the laws of physics and biology.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 04 Oct 2006 07:08:40 PM
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159987051.328731.76220@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:45231310$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Yes, this I understand. As the theory of evolution is already
well on its way to being proven, could it not apply to a creator
also? I think your "simpler theory" is that a creator does not
exist, yes?


Not necessarily. My point is simply that an evolving god is more
complex than a non-evolving god, while explaining no more.


Except an evolving god (if one existed) would answer the question of
"Who created god?".


Folks in the Middle Ages had the theory that life was
spontaneously created; later knowledge proved the theory was
incorrect though it was a very simple theory. It was replaced by
a more complex one...leading eventually to the very complex theory
of evolution as an explanation of all life.


Mm - I don't regard the idea that life occurs spontaneously as a
theory of how life is created. It's the absence of a theory.


Abiogenesis - theory of the spontaneous generation of life from
non-living sources). ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


I see the possibility of a simple theory being replaced by a more
complex one. A possibility - nothing more.


And I acknowledge the possibility. But if we pointlessly indulge
ourselves with the consideration of the infinite number of
possibilities out there, our fruitful thought would be infinitely
diluted, and our knowledge would stop advancing.


However, by considering a number of possibilities (not an infinite
number) many discoveries in science, medicine, technology, etc. have
been made. Questioning and considering possible alternatives leads
(not always but often) to advances. If one does not question and
consider possibilities, nothing advances.


I am not current on the "Big Bang" idea; has it been disproved?
That is a theory which provided the universe with a beginning, did
it not?


No. The Big Bang theory has recently gained support following the
COBE satellite experiment, but it's not a theory about Creation.

It states that at one time the universe was a singularity which
underwent a subsequent period of rapid expansion. We have no
information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event.


No information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event
allows one to consider possibilities. Doesn't prove anything, but
keeps the mind open. One possibility could eventually be proven to
be the correct one as more information is added.


Even if the Big Bang was the universe's first event, the situation
is still that we don't know what, if anything, caused it. And not
knowing the answer to any question does not mean that the answer is
God.


Doesn't mean a creator isn't the answer either. *smile*

Life on this planet evolved from (as I understand) a primordial
soup of chemicals. The beginning of life was chance, yes? Could
not an entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not
involving matter which was later created by this entity?
Obviously no proof or evidence of this exists; it is no more than
an exercise in thinking.


Sure. There are lots of fanciful models of God and the Universe out
there to keep you entertained if that's your bent.


No. I have my theist beliefs....I do not need to examine other
models as I have already done so in the past. Expanding this
discussion to "infininte possibilities" and "models" is
counterproductive. I have been discussing ONE (emphasis not yelling)
possibility.

Pangur - who enjoys this discussion; thank you.


I've been following this discussion, here's my two cents.

I don't see how anything could evolve in a vaccuum, let alone the most
advanced being imaginable.

Could not an entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not
involving matter
which was later created by this entity? Note I did not say a
vaccuum. Lack of matter does not (as far as I know - which
admittedly is durn little) preclude forms of energy. Don't radio
waves, x-rays, and others travel quite nicely through a vaccuum?
If they do, perhaps another energy form we cannot yet record on
our primitive machines is present in a vaccuum, one capable of
organizing into intelligence. I am NOT (emphasis not yelling)
saying my idea is true; I am just exploring it.

I don't see how a being could appear without
having parents, as all life we've seen has a parent (with a loose
definition of the word parent).

Very loose! LOL parthenogenesis (pär'th?n?j?n`?s?s) [Gr.,=virgin
birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops
into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has
been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the
rotifers), especially insects,...... *snip* for brevity
In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the
unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs
to the female workers and queens. The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was
discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb
accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he
pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some
cases normal embryonic development ensued. Artificial parthenogenesis
has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although
it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development. Numerous
mechanical and chemical agents have been used to stimulate unfertilized
eggs. In 1936, Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian
(rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. No successful
experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported.(YET added)
The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy)
than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in
parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types
are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.

I think your idea (that god evolved),
which I note that you acknowledge as unlikely, is actually impossible,
and violates the laws of physics and biology.

See above. friendly *smile*
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 04 Oct 2006 11:02:14 PM
Pangur Ban wrote:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159987051.328731.76220@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:45231310$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

Yes, this I understand. As the theory of evolution is already
well on its way to being proven, could it not apply to a creator
also? I think your "simpler theory" is that a creator does not
exist, yes?


Not necessarily. My point is simply that an evolving god is more
complex than a non-evolving god, while explaining no more.


Except an evolving god (if one existed) would answer the question of
"Who created god?".


Folks in the Middle Ages had the theory that life was
spontaneously created; later knowledge proved the theory was
incorrect though it was a very simple theory. It was replaced by
a more complex one...leading eventually to the very complex theory
of evolution as an explanation of all life.


Mm - I don't regard the idea that life occurs spontaneously as a
theory of how life is created. It's the absence of a theory.


Abiogenesis - theory of the spontaneous generation of life from
non-living sources). ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


I see the possibility of a simple theory being replaced by a more
complex one. A possibility - nothing more.


And I acknowledge the possibility. But if we pointlessly indulge
ourselves with the consideration of the infinite number of
possibilities out there, our fruitful thought would be infinitely
diluted, and our knowledge would stop advancing.


However, by considering a number of possibilities (not an infinite
number) many discoveries in science, medicine, technology, etc. have
been made. Questioning and considering possible alternatives leads
(not always but often) to advances. If one does not question and
consider possibilities, nothing advances.


I am not current on the "Big Bang" idea; has it been disproved?
That is a theory which provided the universe with a beginning, did
it not?


No. The Big Bang theory has recently gained support following the
COBE satellite experiment, but it's not a theory about Creation.

It states that at one time the universe was a singularity which
underwent a subsequent period of rapid expansion. We have no
information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event.


No information about what, if anything, existed prior to that event
allows one to consider possibilities. Doesn't prove anything, but
keeps the mind open. One possibility could eventually be proven to
be the correct one as more information is added.


Even if the Big Bang was the universe's first event, the situation
is still that we don't know what, if anything, caused it. And not
knowing the answer to any question does not mean that the answer is
God.


Doesn't mean a creator isn't the answer either. *smile*

Life on this planet evolved from (as I understand) a primordial
soup of chemicals. The beginning of life was chance, yes? Could
not an entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not
involving matter which was later created by this entity?
Obviously no proof or evidence of this exists; it is no more than
an exercise in thinking.


Sure. There are lots of fanciful models of God and the Universe out
there to keep you entertained if that's your bent.


No. I have my theist beliefs....I do not need to examine other
models as I have already done so in the past. Expanding this
discussion to "infininte possibilities" and "models" is
counterproductive. I have been discussing ONE (emphasis not yelling)
possibility.

Pangur - who enjoys this discussion; thank you.


I've been following this discussion, here's my two cents.

I don't see how anything could evolve in a vaccuum, let alone the most
advanced being imaginable.


Could not an entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not
involving matter
which was later created by this entity? Note I did not say a
vaccuum. Lack of matter does not (as far as I know - which
admittedly is durn little) preclude forms of energy. Don't radio
waves, x-rays, and others travel quite nicely through a vaccuum?
If they do, perhaps another energy form we cannot yet record on
our primitive machines is present in a vaccuum, one capable of
organizing into intelligence. I am NOT (emphasis not yelling)
saying my idea is true; I am just exploring it.


I don't see how a being could appear without
having parents, as all life we've seen has a parent (with a loose
definition of the word parent).


Very loose! LOL parthenogenesis (p=E4r'th?n?j?n`?s?s) [Gr.,=3Dvirgin
birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops
into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has
been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the
rotifers), especially insects,...... *snip* for brevity
In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the
unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs
to the female workers and queens. The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was
discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb
accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he
pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some
cases normal embryonic development ensued. Artificial parthenogenesis
has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although
it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development. Numerous
mechanical and chemical agents have been used to stimulate unfertilized
eggs. In 1936, Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian
(rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. No successful
experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported.(YET added)
The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy)
than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in
parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types
are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.

Like I said, my use of the word "parentage" was very loose. The point
was that all life can be traced to the generation, no matter how they
happen to reproduce. At no point does a deity need to be introduced for
it to work.

I think your idea (that god evolved),
which I note that you acknowledge as unlikely, is actually impossible,
and violates the laws of physics and biology.


See above. friendly *smile*

I think you've only reinforced my point with your example. smile.

Pangur - nonchristian theist

I think you're one of those people that call it god when I call it
nature. I think you're actually an atheist, but your love of nature is
what you'd call a spiritual experience (and imply a spirit/god because
of it), when I'd call the same thing a love of nature, and enjoy it at
that.
.
User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 05 Oct 2006 12:12:51 AM
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1160002934.677731.259780@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159987051.328731.76220@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:45231310$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

*snip* for brevity


I've been following this discussion, here's my two cents.

I don't see how anything could evolve in a vaccuum, let alone the
most advanced being imaginable.


Could not an entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not
involving matter
which was later created by this entity? Note I did not say a
vaccuum. Lack of matter does not (as far as I know - which
admittedly is durn little) preclude forms of energy. Don't
radio waves, x-rays, and others travel quite nicely through a
vaccuum? If they do, perhaps another energy form we cannot yet
record on our primitive machines is present in a vaccuum, one
capable of organizing into intelligence. I am NOT (emphasis
not yelling) saying my idea is true; I am just exploring it.


I don't see how a being could appear without
having parents, as all life we've seen has a parent (with a loose
definition of the word parent).


Very loose! LOL parthenogenesis (pär'th?n?j?n`?s?s) [Gr.,=virgin
birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops
into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis
has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the
rotifers), especially insects,...... *snip* for brevity
In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the
unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized
eggs to the female workers and queens. The phenomenon of
parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet.
In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial
parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle
and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued.
Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all
major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete
and abnormal development. Numerous mechanical and chemical agents
have been used to stimulate unfertilized eggs. In 1936, Gregory
Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian (rabbit) eggs by
temperature change and chemical agents. No successful experiments
with human parthenogenesis have been reported.(YET added) The
phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy)
than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in
parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some
types are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.


Like I said, my use of the word "parentage" was very loose. The point
was that all life can be traced to the generation, no matter how they
happen to reproduce. At no point does a deity need to be introduced
for it to work.

I did not introduce a deity who created life; I have already stated
I
believe in evolution (as a fossil hunter, I'd better LOL). You, sir,
introduced that idea, not I. I am not a creationist... nor a christian
in case you don't read my sig line. I am exploring the idea that a
deity - in an as yet unkown way - evolved and then created the universe.
Note: I did not say I believed this...just that I am exploring the
idea as, frankly, I explore a lot of ideas.


I think your idea (that god evolved),
which I note that you acknowledge as unlikely, is actually
impossible, and violates the laws of physics and biology.


See above. friendly *smile*


I think you've only reinforced my point with your example. smile.

Physics it may violate; biology.... I am no expert. However, if life
can evolve on this planet, why not in the vaccuum before the universe?


Pangur - nonchristian theist


I think you're one of those people that call it god when I call it
nature.

I've been told this before and considered it carefully. If true, I
would say so. I do not say so.

I think you're actually an atheist, but your love of nature is
what you'd call a spiritual experience (and imply a spirit/god because
of it), when I'd call the same thing a love of nature, and enjoy it at
that.

Again no, I see the beauty of this world, the beauty of Jupiter, the
stark beauty of the moon, and the indescribible beauty of the universe
as NASA displays daily as a gift from my deity....a gift not to humanity
as we, who destroy so much of it, do not deserve such bounty. It is a
gift to itself, especially as I believe humanity evolved, was not
created.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Is the worship of a Creator a waste of time? 05 Oct 2006 06:07:23 PM
Pangur Ban wrote:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1160002934.677731.259780@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159987051.328731.76220@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Pangur Ban wrote:

Steve Andrewartha <s_andrewartha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:45231310$1@herald:

Pangur Ban wrote:

*snip* for brevity


I've been following this discussion, here's my two cents.

I don't see how anything could evolve in a vaccuum, let alone the
most advanced being imaginable.


Could not an entity have evolved in some as yet unknown way not
involving matter
which was later created by this entity? Note I did not say a
vaccuum. Lack of matter does not (as far as I know - which
admittedly is durn little) preclude forms of energy. Don't
radio waves, x-rays, and others travel quite nicely through a