| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"= Vox Populi ©" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2003 10:01:31 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:o9oojv8mu2r11h3emlbf0c83uucrjtr7s3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:36:34 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F3B96D0.426711B3@worldnet.att.net...
Ken Smith wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country
is something we should stand behind.
Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part
Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom,
the
flag, and apple pie.
Funny, they "messed with it" when they added the supercilious "gaawd" part,
and 'murrrrricans mess with their moms (MILF sites anyone?) and (French)
Apple
Pie
(American Pie) all the time too ...
Hell, they willingly desecrate and decimate their beloved Constitution as
the drop of a hat ...
-- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the State's
legitimate objectives should be met.
The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law.
*****. There is no "god" you blithering ignoramus.
How can you prove that?
Easy numbnuts. Your lack of proof, or even probable evidence, that a "god"
exists is all the proof one needs.
--
"This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religions in it."
- John Adams
.
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
15 Aug 2003 10:52:36 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
Easy numbnuts. Your lack of proof, or even probable evidence, that a "god"
exists is all the proof one needs.
Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler
explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
Considering the ordering of the Universe out of Chaos, my own answer is that
there is.
Of course, it denies people the comfort of thinking that their existence is
limited, but it can't be helped.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
16 Aug 2003 11:21:33 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.......> > Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a
simpler
explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
Au Contrare, Pierre.
Occam's Razor, and logic, clearly indicate there is
no need for, or even a possibility for, a god creature as first cause.
If you see an ordered system, the most logical perception is that there is
an 'orderer'.
Unless you postulate the 'happy accident' wherein you throw the parts into
the air and they fall to earth as a watch.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
16 Aug 2003 12:21:01 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ev6cncD-DqHax6OiXTWJkg@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
......> > Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a
simpler
explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
Au Contrare, Pierre.
Occam's Razor, and logic, clearly indicate there is
no need for, or even a possibility for, a god creature as first cause.
If you see an ordered system, the most logical perception is that there is
an 'orderer'.
Only for small minded folk
Of course your fabricated "orderer" would
itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great
grand-orderer"
to explain that one, so you see your "orderer" explains exactly nothing at all,
unless you're going to claim it's Turtles all the way Down ...
Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we
can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.
If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility,
then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the
unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn
self-ordered/created.
Unless you postulate the 'happy accident' wherein you throw the parts into
the air and they fall to earth as a watch.
Ibid.
Your "orderer" is entirely unnecessary, and explains nothing.
Chas
--
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
16 Aug 2003 10:36:13 PM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
Of course your fabricated "orderer" would
itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great
grand-orderer"
Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been?
Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we
can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility,
then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the
unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn
self-ordered/created.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a God
who *is* the Universe.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 10:43:41 AM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QA2dndVu2fv7ZaOiU-KYvA@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
Of course your fabricated "orderer" would
itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great
grand-orderer"
Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been?
Correct answer: As many as there needed to be to produce
the universe you and I currently inhabit.
Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we
can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
No, it does no such thing.
The universe is ordered,
Is it? Do you have any comprehension of the Science of Chaos,
chaotic systems and chaos theory? You do know that
chaotic systems ALWAYS eventually produce random
outcomes of order and symmetry given enough time/iterations.
therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
Nope, not at all. Your god creature is neither required
nor does it answer any of the questions/equations. It simply
hides them.
If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility,
then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the
unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn
self-ordered/created.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a God
who *is* the Universe.
Absurd sophistry, and your extreme retreat to such a tautological position
simply proves and confirms that your god, as shown before, is absolutely
un-necessary and doesn't answer/solve any questions.
Thanks for unwittingly confessing to be a closet atheist ... who still
practicing
moderate forms of self-delusion.
Now excuse me while I pinch a loaf of your "god" off into my toilet...
would you like a taste?
--
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:14
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my
youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is
torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 12:32:30 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ik6dnXw-lq6mMqKiU-KYvg@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been?
Correct answer: As many as there needed to be to produce
the universe you and I currently inhabit.
Dancing on the head of a pin under a rock big enough that he can't move it.
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
No, it does no such thing.
The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
That's what it means, thickie.
It does no such thing. Your ignorance of
the theory is showing.
In any event, your god creature still answers nothing,
and is therefore un-necessary.
Is it? Do you have any comprehension of the Science of Chaos,
chaotic systems and chaos theory? You do know that
chaotic systems ALWAYS eventually produce random
outcomes of order and symmetry given enough time/iterations.
Any study of chaos adds it's own influence to the condition- rendering it
not 'chaos' at all, simply disordered.
So there can be no chaos? And in the billions of years (99.99% of all time)
before humans existed what "study influenced the conditions" ?
PS: Your god creature still answers nothing, and is therefore un-necessary.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a
God
who *is* the Universe.
Absurd sophistry, and your extreme retreat to such a tautological position
simply proves and confirms that your god, as shown before, is absolutely
un-necessary and doesn't answer/solve any questions.
Not in the least.
The universe is order out of chaos;
What "chaos"? You claim it isn't recognizable.
intent. Can't be anything else.
As clearly stated before, Chaos and Chaotic systems
do randomly and spontaneously produce "order"
given enough time/iterations. If you claim what
you observe in the Universe is "ordered", then
you are merely existing in period of time where
the "order" has erupted.
And your absurd claim the "order" = "intent" is simply
that ... absurd ... and false.
You are a part of the universe, and are self-aware.
Yep.
The universe can be no less than you-
Not entirely true, especially given *your* strained
definition of "god" ... but continue ...
In fact, it may well be quite a bit more.
Lets hope so.
Now excuse me while I pinch a loaf of your "god" off into my toilet...
would you like a taste?
No need to be tacky;
*****.
It's blasphemous to call your god-creature a *****. It's your god-creature
that commands you to Eat *****, why do you deny it? And it's your god-creature
that condemns blasphemers like you to Death ...
Now eat up, it's your god's command !
--
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:14
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my
youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is
torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
Now that your belly is full of *****, be put to death for your blasphemy:
--
Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely
be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as
well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the
name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Josh 1:18 Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and
will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall
be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 12:41:56 PM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
......> > The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
That's what it means, thickie.
It does no such thing. Your ignorance of
the theory is showing.
Do you have any response other than 'nanny nanny boo boo'?
Any study of chaos adds it's own influence to the condition- rendering
it
not 'chaos' at all, simply disordered.
So there can be no chaos?
Not after order is imposed upon it.
What "chaos"? You claim it isn't recognizable.
Precisely.
It is 'recognized' by contrast.
I particularly liked your 'jumping glass' assertion, by the way.
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/silatknifefighting.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 01:15:25 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zUCdnVyf3N0GI6KiXTWJjQ@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
That's what it means, thickie.
It does no such thing. Your ignorance of
the theory is showing.
Do you have any response other than 'nanny nanny boo boo'?
Sure, the one you so deliberately ignore -
Your postulated god creature answers no questions,
solves no equations, and is entirely un-necessary to explain
the universe as it is.
Any study of chaos adds it's own influence to the condition- rendering
it
not 'chaos' at all, simply disordered.
So there can be no chaos?
Not after order is imposed upon it.
The Chas Theory of Tautological Semantics?
What "chaos"? You claim it isn't recognizable.
Precisely.
It is 'recognized' by contrast.
Contrasting it with that which you can't recognize?
Your problems are becoming more evident ...
I particularly liked your 'jumping glass' assertion, by the way.
Far more plausible, and probable, than your god-creature.
Ignorance and fear give you no quarter, Chas.
--
Exo 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of
rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he
shall surely be put to death.
Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely
be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as
well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the
name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Josh 1:18 Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and
will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall
be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.
2 Chr 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be
put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
18 Aug 2003 11:14:22 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
......> > And yet; He lives.
You're lying again. And your mental illness and ignorance
is further illustrated by assigning gender to your fabricated
god-creature.
It's just a grammatical identifier.
I think that 'It' isn't polite- 'person' doesn't apply.
Nah; it's not a gender ident, Vox. You're welcome to call Her anything you
care to, It doesn't offend easily and They won't retaliate, He simply leaves
you alone.
One of the problems, ma'am, is that your strawmen are based on medieval
ideas held by illiterates in your culture of a thousand years ago (I'm
making an understood assumption of your european heritage). Some of us
actually read and write now, Missy- and even go to school past 6th grade.
You can fill in the insults as care to- you seem to waste a lot of time and
energy on that, but I can't really be bothered to play with you that way.
Chas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 03:52:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:41:56 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
That's what it means, thickie.
It does no such thing. Your ignorance of
the theory is showing.
Do you have any response other than 'nanny nanny boo boo'?
In point of fact you made an erroneous statement about the big bang.
The answer you received may have been rude, but it was correct.
Any study of chaos adds it's own influence to the condition- rendering
it
not 'chaos' at all, simply disordered.
So there can be no chaos?
Not after order is imposed upon it.
What "chaos"? You claim it isn't recognizable.
Precisely.
It is 'recognized' by contrast.
I particularly liked your 'jumping glass' assertion, by the way.
Where in the universe is there chaos? How can you contrast order
with chaos, when you live in an ordered universe?
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 10:26:33 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
.....> > The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
In point of fact you made an erroneous statement about the big bang.
The answer you received may have been rude, but it was correct.
Says you.
Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
What was before it?
What precipitated it?
What condition resulted?
By the way, I think the first 'ordering' was sound.
Where in the universe is there chaos?
No where.
Of course, no when either.
That's why they call it 'Chaos'.
How can you contrast order
with chaos, when you live in an ordered universe?
By it's order- that which is God.
Chaos is unordered, so there's little to be said for, or about (it).
--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/silatknifefighting.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
18 Aug 2003 11:15:45 AM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7FqdnQhPqZED2t2iXTWJjQ@comcast.com...
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
.....> > The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
In point of fact you made an erroneous statement about the big bang.
The answer you received may have been rude, but it was correct.
Says you.
Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
Show me evidence that Flying Pink Elephants who live
in the middle of a Star somewhere don't ***** purple bowlingballs.
What was before it?
<now you've got yourself in a pickle>
There was no before.
What was before your god-creature?
What precipitated it?
It self-precipitated.
What precipitated your god-creature?
What condition resulted?
The universe as we know it.
By the way, I think the first 'ordering' was sound.
As you've yet again illustrated unequivocally, and quite unwittingly,
your god-creature is completely un-necessary to explain the universe
or it's origins, your fabricated god-creature answers no questions
and solves no problems, it is merely a delusional device for weak
minded individuals to hide their unknown, uncomfortable questions and
fear.
You ignorant fundies claim that the Universe can't self-create, that it needs
a "first cause / orderer", yet you claim that a creature
sophisticated and potent enough to create the entire universe can
self-create and doesn't need a "first cause / orderer". How absurd.
Occams razor, your fabricated god-creature is un-necessary if
"self-creation" and "self-ordering" are possible anywhere.
You blithering morons claim that "something" had to come "before"
the beginning, yet claim nothing came before your fabricated "god-creature".
If anything can exist without a "before" then the universe can exist without
a "before".
You're nothing but an ignoramus, hiding your abject fear and stupidity in a
box and calling that box "god".
Where in the universe is there chaos?
No where.
Of course, no when either.
That's why they call it 'Chaos'.
How can you contrast order
with chaos, when you live in an ordered universe?
By it's order- that which is God.
My stinky turds are god, Chas, care for a taste?
PS: Your pathetic god commands it, now eat ***** or admit that
you are the infidel that you are!
--
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:14
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my
youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is
torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
18 Aug 2003 12:02:48 PM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
......> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look into it.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to happen by
happy accident.
Shakespeare won against the Monkeys, remember? We're still waiting for them
to write by accident.
What was before it?
<now you've got yourself in a pickle>
There was no before.
Absolutely.
There was only Chaos until the intent to order manifested- the Beginning was
the Word- the sound formed by intent.
What was before your god-creature?
Chaos.
What precipitated it?
It self-precipitated.
Bingo.
What precipitated your god-creature?
The concept of self- of being another condition from Chaos.
What condition resulted?
The universe as we know it.
Precisely.
You ignorant fundies claim that the Universe can't self-create,
No; we say it *did* self-create.
In the Beginning was the Word (Bang)- and the Word was God (I'm Bang), and
the Word was with God (I continue to be Bang).
that it needs
a "first cause / orderer",
No; that it's the *result/continuing* of the first cause/orderer.
yet you claim that a creature
sophisticated and potent enough to create the entire universe can
self-create and doesn't need a "first cause / orderer". How absurd.
GIGO, ma'am.
Your understanding and analysis is flawed throughout.
Occams razor, your fabricated god-creature is un-necessary if
"self-creation" and "self-ordering" are possible anywhere.
And as we're created in the image of God- that is to say a part of the
whole- the whole can be no less than we. The existence of God is proven by
the very fact we're arguing over it.
It *is* self-created, self-ordering, and the genesis of all order
everywhere- all else is Chaos.
You blithering morons claim that "something" had to come "before"
the beginning, yet claim nothing came before your fabricated
"god-creature".
The word Chaos presupposes that 'before' had no relevance- there was nothing
to which to assign duration.
The ordering of energy out of that condition of Chaos is the 'Big Bang'; the
beginning of things that have duration to assign the measurement of Time
passing since that event.
There was nothing before God; and nothing that is anything but Him since.
Chaos is still unordered, so 'time' has no relevance to (it).
If anything can exist without a "before" then the universe can exist
without
a "before".
Yes; any 'thing'.
English isn't your native language, is it?
You're nothing but an ignoramus, hiding your abject fear and stupidity in
a
box and calling that box "god".
Actually, the concept of being more than some instant meatsicle is far more
frightening than the idea of just returning to the Void.
I find the 'atheists' to be the ones with their heads stuck in the sand,
catering to their fears and timorousness. Far scarier to contemplate
Eternity as a particpant.
(snip coprophagic fantasies from vox)
--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/silatknifefighting.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
18 Aug 2003 01:35:28 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GcycnZs9TJxwm9yiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look into it.
That's proving a positive.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical observation.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order" spontaneously.
Shakespeare won against the Monkeys, remember? We're still waiting for them
to write by accident.
Well, while your waiting for that, contemplate how those monkey's
ancestors, given enough time, evolved into The Bard himself.
What was before it?
<now you've got yourself in a pickle>
There was no before.
Absolutely.
There was only Chaos until the intent to order manifested-
Self-manifested?
the Beginning was
the Word- the sound formed by intent.
What was before your god-creature?
Chaos.
So your god-creature self-created?
What precipitated it?
It self-precipitated.
Bingo.
What precipitated your god-creature?
The concept of self- of being another condition from Chaos.
Thanks for confessing that "order" can and does spring spontaneously
from chaos.
What condition resulted?
The universe as we know it.
Precisely.
You ignorant fundies claim that the Universe can't self-create,
No; we say it *did* self-create.
Who's we? The Congregation of Chas?
You and what modern religion?
Certainly not any of the Holy Babble cults and cretins.
In the Beginning was the Word (Bang)- and the Word was God (I'm Bang), and
the Word was with God (I continue to be Bang).
Hear the Bang, feel the bang, be the bang ... how very Zen ... and Un-Christian
!
that it needs
a "first cause / orderer",
No; that it's the *result/continuing* of the first cause/orderer.
And then what, pray tell, was the "first cause / orderer" of the god-creature
in your unique and peculiar religion?
yet you claim that a creature
sophisticated and potent enough to create the entire universe can
self-create and doesn't need a "first cause / orderer". How absurd.
GIGO, ma'am.
Your understanding and analysis is flawed throughout.
Yet you lack the ability to show how, or posit a logical
or plausible counter.
Occams razor, your fabricated god-creature is un-necessary if
"self-creation" and "self-ordering" are possible anywhere.
And as we're created in the image of God- that is to say a part of the
whole- the whole can be no less than we.
So therefore the Universe, using *your* premise, must be LESS than
your god-creature. Yet you claim that your god is no more, no less, than
the universe itself. Silly sophistry, and entirely un-necessary as a fabrication
to explain or understand anything.
The existence of God is proven by
the very fact we're arguing over it.
My stinky turds are god, and I've argued that with people
before, so that proves my stinky turds are god. Now
sniff deep and long, and taste and savor the glory of
my turdy god!
It *is* self-created, self-ordering, and the genesis of all order
everywhere- all else is Chaos.
Then your god-creature is entirely un-necessary to explain anything.
Ipso facto your own, albeit unwitting, admissions.
You blithering morons claim that "something" had to come "before"
the beginning, yet claim nothing came before your fabricated
"god-creature".
The word Chaos presupposes that 'before' had no relevance- there was nothing
to which to assign duration.
Yep.
The ordering of energy out of that condition of Chaos is the 'Big Bang';
So far so good ...
the
beginning of things that have duration to assign the measurement of Time
passing since that event.
Continue ... though I predict a logic-fart on your part is nigh ...
There was nothing before God;
Wooop! There it is!
You meant to say, there was nothing before the creation
of the Universe, i.e., BB.
and nothing that is anything but Him since.
Your abject ignorance and perversion to fabricate is
showing again.
Chaos is still unordered, so 'time' has no relevance to (it).
If anything can exist without a "before" then the universe can exist
without
a "before".
Yes; any 'thing'.
Your god-creature isn't a "thing" ...?
English isn't your native language, is it?
Perhaps I should study Mumbo-Jumbo so as
to better follow your utter ***** ?
You're nothing but an ignoramus, hiding your abject fear and stupidity in
a
box and calling that box "god".
Actually, the concept of being more than some instant meatsicle is far more
frightening than the idea of just returning to the Void.
The Void? Is this a Star Trek episode now ...
I find the 'atheists' to be the ones with their heads stuck in the sand,
catering to their fears and timorousness. Far scarier to contemplate
Eternity as a particpant.
Really? Do expound upon your fear of everlasting?
(snip coprophagic fantasies from vox)
You're lying again Chas, typical of a Fundie Babble thumper.
That Coprophilia is Commanded By Your Lord God !
Now eat up you infidel blasphemer -
--
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:14
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my
youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is
torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 09:34:47 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look into
it.
That's proving a positive.
Well, you couldn't step up on the last question either- there's another for
you.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to
happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical observation.
You're delusional.
Sentient intent gets a lot of stuff done, Vox.
Extrapolate from the human intent, and the Universe can be no less than it's
part.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order" spontaneously.
It's an ordered Universe, Vox; the intent is order from disorder.
Shakespeare won against the Monkeys, remember? We're still waiting for
them
to write by accident.
Well, while your waiting for that, contemplate how those monkey's
ancestors, given enough time, evolved into The Bard himself.
In an ordered process, Vox.
Absolutely.
There was only Chaos until the intent to order manifested-
Self-manifested?
Yup.
Chaos.
So your god-creature self-created?
It's just 'god', Vox; no 'creature' to it.
The concept of self- of being another condition from Chaos.
Thanks for confessing that "order" can and does spring spontaneously
from chaos.
Did.
Sure.
The intent sprang spontaneously from the Void.
Yup.
And every(thing) after that is the intent of that event.
You ignorant fundies claim that the Universe can't self-create,
No; we say it *did* self-create.
Who's we? The Congregation of Chas?
Your preoccupation with organized religion is naive.
In the Beginning was the Word (Bang)- and the Word was God (I'm Bang),
and
the Word was with God (I continue to be Bang).
Hear the Bang, feel the bang, be the bang ... how very Zen ... and
Un-Christian
So?
Even if true.
Your understanding and analysis is flawed throughout.
Yet you lack the ability to show how, or posit a logical
or plausible counter.
Your questions are absurdly framed- and your rhetoric is sloppy. Your
semantic rigor is non-existent, and your agenda compels your
rationalizations.
So therefore the Universe, using *your* premise, must be LESS than
your god-creature.
Not in the least- just another example of your flabby thinking.
Yet you claim that your god is no more, no less, than
the universe itself. Silly sophistry, and entirely un-necessary as a
fabrication
to explain or understand anything.
Not at all- you're entire thesis rests on the remote possibility in some
theoretical reality of a glass falling up and reconstituting.
Tenuous at best.
My thesis rests on the intent of order out of chaos- which seems to be the
case by all measures we use.
My stinky turds are god, and I've argued that with people
before, so that proves my stinky turds are god. Now
sniff deep and long, and taste and savor the glory of
my turdy god!
See?
That's the kind of stuff that afflicts all your stuff, lady.
There was nothing before God;
Wooop! There it is!
You meant to say, there was nothing before the creation
of the Universe, i.e., BB.
order out of chaos- the prime event.
Your god-creature isn't a "thing" ...?
Not as compares to any other 'thing'.
It's ineffable; incomparable. One can only 'contrast', not compare.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 04:12:46 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1budnSwaa95WqN-iXTWJkA@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look into
it.
That's proving a positive.
Well, you couldn't step up on the last question either- there's another for
you.
Typical fundy, asking others to prove a negative.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to
happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical observation.
You're delusional.
Sentient intent gets a lot of stuff done, Vox.
Irrelevant to the necessity or existence of any god-creature(s).
Extrapolate from the human intent, and the Universe can be no less than it's
part.
Still irrelevant to the necessity or existence of any god-creature(s).
Humans can have intent or not. Don't mean the Universe as a whole
has intent, and doesn't even come close to establishing that some
god-creature's intent created the entire thing.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order" spontaneously.
It's an ordered Universe, Vox; the intent is order from disorder.
There is no intent, numbnuts. You have failed, and will always fail, in
your pathetic attempt to try and redefine the word Order to equal Intent.
Typical psychotic fundie, retro-fabricating premise to fit your pre-ordained
syllogism.
Shakespeare won against the Monkeys, remember? We're still waiting for
them
to write by accident.
Well, while your waiting for that, contemplate how those monkey's
ancestors, given enough time, evolved into The Bard himself.
In an ordered process, Vox.
And don't forget, Order /= Intent and
you have promoted nothing to support the existence
of, nor the need for, and god-creature.
Absolutely.
There was only Chaos until the intent to order manifested-
Self-manifested?
Yup.
Chaos.
So your god-creature self-created?
It's just 'god', Vox; no 'creature' to it.
So your god isn't a sentient creature?
The concept of self- of being another condition from Chaos.
Thanks for confessing that "order" can and does spring spontaneously
from chaos.
Did.
Sure.
The intent sprang spontaneously from the Void.
Yup.
And every(thing) after that is the intent of that event.
Typical fundie, desperately perverting the definitions of words
and concepts in a pathetic attempt to force the evidence fit your
pre-determined (false) conclusions.
"Intent"; is a State of Mind, it requires a mind and consciousness.
You ignorant fundies claim that the Universe can't self-create,
No; we say it *did* self-create.
Who's we? The Congregation of Chas?
Your preoccupation with organized religion is naive.
It's you who seem obsessed with defending the indefensible.
In the Beginning was the Word (Bang)- and the Word was God (I'm Bang),
and
the Word was with God (I continue to be Bang).
Hear the Bang, feel the bang, be the bang ... how very Zen ... and
Un-Christian
So?
Even if true.
Still does nothing to support the existence of, much less the need
for, any god-creature(s).
Your understanding and analysis is flawed throughout.
Yet you lack the ability to show how, or posit a logical
or plausible counter.
Your questions are absurdly framed-
You're evading those which clearly disprove your claims.
and your rhetoric is sloppy.
Says the sophist who perverts common words and phrases
beyond usable comprehension.
Your
semantic rigor is non-existent, and your agenda compels your
rationalizations.
Your talking to your mirror again, Chas.
So therefore the Universe, using *your* premise, must be LESS than
your god-creature.
Not in the least- just another example of your flabby thinking.
Yes, your premise and the conclusions that emanate from it
are the result of grotesquely flabby cognition.
Yet you claim that your god is no more, no less, than
the universe itself. Silly sophistry, and entirely un-necessary as a
fabrication
to explain or understand anything.
Not at all- you're entire thesis rests on the remote possibility in some
theoretical reality of a glass falling up and reconstituting.
Not my thesis at all. It's was merely an anecdote from accepted
peer reviewed scientific theory of the day, regarding Quantum mechanics,
the Uncertainty Principle, and Chaos Theory.
Tenuous at best.
If you claim and redefine all of modern science to be
"tenuous at best" then your word makes it so.
My thesis rests on the intent of order out of chaos- which seems to be the
case by all measures we use.
And your "thesis" fails at the first premise, and your (mis)definition
of the first major term.
There is no "intent" inherent in "order".
And even if solely for the sake of argument, in some dyslexic alternate
universe we were to grant you that absurdism, it does NOTHING
to establish the existence of, nor the need for, any definable god-creature.
(yes, unfortunately I had to add the heretofore implied adjective "definable"
as you seem to be rapidly retreating into a "god" defined as indefinable
in character or quality)
My stinky turds are god, and I've argued that with people
before, so that proves my stinky turds are god. Now
sniff deep and long, and taste and savor the glory of
my turdy god!
See?
Yes, see you deliberately omitted YOUR preposterous
proof which was shown to be absurd by the analogy
I posted above.
Your absurd, fundy deluded claim was, and I quote:
The existence of God is proven by
the very fact we're arguing over it.
Let me repeat that for the dimwitted nutsacks like
you who don't get it on first reading, you absurdly claimed -
The existence of God is proven by
the very fact we're arguing over it.
So therefore, using the magical logic of Chas -
My stinky turds are god, and I've argued that with people
before, so that proves my stinky turds are god. Now
sniff deep and long, and taste and savor the glory of
my turdy god!
There was nothing before God;
Wooop! There it is!
You meant to say, there was nothing before the creation
of the Universe, i.e., BB.
order out of chaos- the prime event.
Yet you have no evidence, or even a cogent theory that
there was "chaos" precipitating the Big Bang (creation of the
universe).
Your god-creature isn't a "thing" ...?
Not as compares to any other 'thing'.
It's ineffable; incomparable.
Un-necessary, non-existent.
One can only 'contrast', not compare.
Or in your case, one can only dissemble, pervert and
retreat from logic to the point of utter absurdity, a
naked singularity of absurdism if you will, and Absurdist
Black Hole, so infinitely dense that no logic can ever escape ...
Chas
PS - There is no god, Chas.
--
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying
of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this
difference unless there is an authority which declares ´God wills it thus.´
Religion is
excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Harmon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 12:50:49 PM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:c090b.39$uS.20251@news.uswest.net...
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GcycnZs9TJxwm9yiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look into
it.
That's proving a positive.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to
happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical observation.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order" spontaneously.
Science has never shown that "order" springs from "dis-order". All that has
been indubitably demonstrated is that if you stare at the jumbled mess of a
"magic-eye" poster long enough, and in the right way, you see what appears
to be a 3-D picture.
Jeremy
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 04:14:44 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy Harmon" <jeremy.mylastnamehere@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f42637a@news.ColoState.EDU...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:c090b.39$uS.20251@news.uswest.net...
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GcycnZs9TJxwm9yiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look into
it.
That's proving a positive.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to
happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical observation.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order" spontaneously.
Science has never shown that "order" springs from "dis-order". All that has
been indubitably demonstrated is that if you stare at the jumbled mess of a
"magic-eye" poster long enough, and in the right way, you see what appears
to be a 3-D picture.
More complete ***** from Jeremy, the Village Idiot from Cow Town.
Jeremy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Harmon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
20 Aug 2003 09:15:17 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:9rw0b.426$br1.37188@news.uswest.net...
"Jeremy Harmon" <jeremy.mylastnamehere@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f42637a@news.ColoState.EDU...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:c090b.39$uS.20251@news.uswest.net...
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GcycnZs9TJxwm9yiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics'; look
into
it.
That's proving a positive.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than to
happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical
observation.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has
actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order" spontaneously.
Science has never shown that "order" springs from "dis-order". All that
has
been indubitably demonstrated is that if you stare at the jumbled mess
of a
"magic-eye" poster long enough, and in the right way, you see what
appears
to be a 3-D picture.
More complete ***** from Jeremy, the Village Idiot from Cow Town.
"Complete *****" must be a synonym for truths you can't rebut. So noted.
Jeremy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Harmon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
22 Aug 2003 10:51:00 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:U1X0b.120$LQ5.43238@news.uswest.net...
"Jeremy Harmon" <jeremy.mylastnamehere@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f438276@news.ColoState.EDU...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:9rw0b.426$br1.37188@news.uswest.net...
"Jeremy Harmon" <jeremy.mylastnamehere@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f42637a@news.ColoState.EDU...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:c090b.39$uS.20251@news.uswest.net...
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GcycnZs9TJxwm9yiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.....> > Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
There you go with your ignorant fundy - "prove the negative"
No; it's not 'prove the negative'.
You said, and I quote:
" Show me the evidence that the BB **lacked** 'intent'."
I can prove the Universe is ordered- they call it 'physics';
look
into
it.
That's proving a positive.
Ordered systems are more likely to have a directing intent than
to
happen by
happy accident.
No, they are not. Not in logic nor in science nor in physical
observation.
In fact, as has been posted numerous times before, Science has
actually
shown that "order" can and does spring from "dis-order"
spontaneously.
Science has never shown that "order" springs from "dis-order". All
that
has
been indubitably demonstrated is that if you stare at the jumbled
mess
of a
"magic-eye" poster long enough, and in the right way, you see what
appears
to be a 3-D picture.
More complete ***** from Jeremy, the Village Idiot from Cow Town.
"Complete *****" must be a synonym for truths you can't rebut. So
noted.
Tell us again about the "magic-eye" poster and how is disproves current
Chaos
Theory ... you blithering ignoramus.
It doesnt' disprove current chaos theory, it exemplifies it. You have a
random jumbled mess of seemingly unordered chaos. If you look at it in the
right way, however, you can definitely see a smooth and ordered form.
Further, the poster is in 2D, but the form that is seen is in 3D. The point
this illustrates is that the "order" did not spring from "disorder", it was
always there, it just wasn't seen.
Jeremy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
18 Aug 2003 02:27:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:26:33 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
.....> > The 'Big Bang' *postulates* intent out of chaos.
In point of fact you made an erroneous statement about the big bang.
The answer you received may have been rude, but it was correct.
Says you.
Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
You claimed that the theory postulated intent. Whether or not there
is intent does not change the fact that the scientific theory called
the "big bang" says nothing about intent.
What was before it?
What precipitated it?
What condition resulted?
By the way, I think the first 'ordering' was sound.
The above has no relevance. The theory says nothing about intent.
Where in the universe is there chaos?
No where.
Of course, no when either.
That's why they call it 'Chaos'.
And that is why you have no way to compare order with chaos.
How can you contrast order
with chaos, when you live in an ordered universe?
By it's order- that which is God.
Chaos is unordered, so there's little to be said for, or about (it).
Yet you insist that you can compare chaos with disorder. Unless you
actually have something relevant to add beyond your insistence that
something that cannot be seen can be compared with anything, perhaps
we should just agree that the discussion is ended and end it on a
courteous note.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 06:09:24 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0oqdnUMkCJf5pd-iXTWJig@comcast.com...
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
Show me the evidence that the BB lacked 'intent'.
You claimed that the theory postulated intent. Whether or not there
is intent does not change the fact that the scientific theory called
the "big bang" says nothing about intent.
A failing of Physics.
How quaint. Science fails to support your god/religion ...
bwahahahahhahanababananannanamammamamama,..a.a.a.a.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
As I say; they can't tell the difference between 'noise' and 'music'-
As you can't distinguish between logic and superstition.
do you deny there is a difference, and that difference is 'intent'?
Denied in it's entirety. Not surprising your wrong again.
The difference is in the *subjective* interpretation of the
listener. You could "intend" to make music Chas, as you
have intended to make an argument for god, yet to the
listener they both may be (ARE) nothing but cacophonous noise.
OTOH, random mechanical unintended noise may be "music"
to someone's ears.
Hell; Physics can't tell the difference between a 'ball' and a 'strike'
without an umpire.
You're quite insane, aren't you?
And that is why you have no way to compare order with chaos.
So you have no idea whether what you call "order" isn't really "chaos",
eh you stammering solipsistic psychopath ...
That is why one would 'contrast' rather than 'compare'.
If you can't define it actual qualities, you can do neither,
unless you're completely mental.
Yet you insist that you can compare chaos with disorder.
Actually, you insist on 'compare'- I say that God is incomparable.
There is no god(s), so there is nothing to compare or contrast.
Try to grasp the implications between the definitions of 'compare' and
'contrast'.
Something you can't seem to do, any more than you comprehend
the meaning of the word "intent".
Unless you
actually have something relevant to add beyond your insistence that
something that cannot be seen can be compared with anything, perhaps
we should just agree that the discussion is ended and end it on a
courteous note.
Sure.
Never any hard feelings; insult is just emphasis.
Then eat your ***** cakes like a good little believer ...
Why won't you eat them Chas? Don't you believe in "god" ?
--
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:14
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my
youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is
torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 06:36:46 PM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
A failing of Physics.
How quaint. Science fails to support your god/religion ...
Physics fails to speak to it at all-
nor to 'intent'.
The difference is in the *subjective* interpretation of the
listener. You could "intend" to make music Chas, as you
have intended to make an argument for god, yet to the
listener they both may be (ARE) nothing but cacophonous noise.
Cite please.
OTOH, random mechanical unintended noise may be "music"
to someone's ears.
Cite please.
So you have no idea whether what you call "order" isn't really "chaos",
Grasping for straws again, Vox.
Hypothetical fantasy piled on ignorant misunderstanding-
or, cite an example, Vox.
That is why one would 'contrast' rather than 'compare'.
If you can't define it actual qualities, you can do neither,
Certainly you can. It's not necessary to know everything about anything in
order to begin analysis by contrast.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 11:22:52 PM |
|
|
"- Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
OK moron, contrast a Leather Shoe with what's in the box under my bed.
Happy.
Chas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 01:57:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:36:13 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
Of course your fabricated "orderer" would
itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great
grand-orderer"
Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been?
Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we
can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
Order is a concept we have attached to the universe. What does a
universe without order look like? It is like thinking the planets
must move in circular orbits, because circles are the most perfect
form; or that time must involve numbers.
If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility,
then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the
unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn
self-ordered/created.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a God
who *is* the Universe.
Neither one is required by necessity.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
17 Aug 2003 09:51:55 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
Order is a concept we have attached to the universe.
'Order' is what we've *found* in the universe.
There are only two conditions- order and chaos.
Chaos doesn't become order by random chance- unless you have an example
you'd like to share with us. You can flip a coin a million times, and it's
never going to come down as a pickle.
What does a
universe without order look like?
It doesn't 'look' like anything- it's 'chaos'. Chaos is the condition of
being unordered, so it can't 'look' 'like' anything.
It is like thinking the planets
must move in circular orbits, because circles are the most perfect
form; or that time must involve numbers.
Our attempt to identify the ordering model- a failure in our perceptions if
anything.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a
God
who *is* the Universe.
Neither one is required by necessity.
You have no other viable alternative- unless you postulate that this is all
a huge accident- which has no more substance or logical base than any other
hypothesis, including the Giant Turtle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Harmon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 12:11:30 PM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:8KN%a.35$Ei.6361@news.uswest.net...
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcWcncnncbBfC6KiXTWJkw@comcast.com...
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
Order is a concept we have attached to the universe.
'Order' is what we've *found* in the universe.
There are only two conditions- order and chaos.
Chaos doesn't become order by random chance- unless you have an example
you'd like to share with us.
I see your problem now. You clearly know nothing at all about the Science
of Chaos/Complex Systems, Chaos Theory and the fact that Chaotic Systems
DO
produce
random "order" entirely by themselves, given enough iterations/time.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate summary of chaos theory. Chaotic
systems do not "produce" order, they are intrinsically part of an ordered
system that may "appear" chaotic until going through enough iterations for
their ordered behavior to become apparent. Which is, I think, a splendid
metaphor for the concept of God that Chas offers. Under that perception of
Chaos Theory, the ultimate question becomes if the universe could be seen in
all it's dimensions, in all it's totality, would it appear as order or
chaos? I don't think we will ever have an empirically meaningful answer to
that question.
Jeremy
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
19 Aug 2003 03:26:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy Harmon" <jeremy.mylastnamehere@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f425a43@news.ColoState.EDU...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:8KN%a.35$Ei.6361@news.uswest.net...
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcWcncnncbBfC6KiXTWJkw@comcast.com...
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
Order is a concept we have attached to the universe.
'Order' is what we've *found* in the universe.
There are only two conditions- order and chaos.
Chaos doesn't become order by random chance- unless you have an example
you'd like to share with us.
I see your problem now. You clearly know nothing at all about the Science
of Chaos/Complex Systems, Chaos Theory and the fact that Chaotic Systems
DO
produce
random "order" entirely by themselves, given enough iterations/time.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate summary of chaos theory.
It is, yet even if it weren't, there still is no basis nor need for any
god-creature/designer/orderer.
Chaotic
systems do not "produce" order,
They clearly do.
they are intrinsically part of an ordered
system that may "appear" chaotic until going through enough iterations for
their ordered behavior to become apparent.
Don't suppose you have a citation to any theory of Chaotic
Systems that supports your inverted claim?
Or is "Order" an intrinsic part of a Chaotic systems?
If Order disintigrates to Dis-order with (long) time, what then is the
baseline/mean/average natural state? (be sure to remove your anthropic bias that
you happen
to exist in an extremely brief period of aparent order)
Which is, I think, a splendid
metaphor for the concept of God that Chas offers.
Utter *****.
Under that perception of
Chaos Theory, the ultimate question becomes if the universe could be seen in
all it's dimensions, in all it's totality, would it appear as order or
chaos?
Completely irrelevant as to the non-existance and non-necessity of god.
I don't think we will ever have an empirically meaningful answer to
that question.
Especailly ignorami like you who deliberatly avoid looking for answers
that may be uncomfortable, and ignore existing uncomfortable answers.
Jeremy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Harmon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Creator" entirely superfluous - Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! |
20 Aug 2003 09:02:32 AM |
|
|
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:hKv0b.419$br1.34849@news.uswest.net...
"Jeremy Harmon" <jeremy.mylastnamehere@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f425a43@news.ColoState.EDU...
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:8KN%a.35$Ei.6361@news.uswest.net...
I don't think that's an entirely accurate summary of chaos theory.
It is, yet even if it weren't, there still is no basis nor need for any
god-creature/designer/orderer.
Chaotic
systems do not "produce" order,
They clearly do.
Order is not "produced". It either is or isn't *especially* in the context
of chaos science. The order may become apparent, or be obscured, but that's
only a function of how it is being observed.
they are intrinsically part of an ordered
system that may "appear" chaotic until going through enough iterations
for
their ordered behavior to become apparent.
Don't suppose you have a citation to any theory of Chaotic
Systems that supports your inverted claim?
Jeremy Harmon, 2003.
Or is "Order" an intrinsic part of a Chaotic systems?
If Order disintigrates to Dis-order with (long) time, what then is the
baseline/mean/average natural state? (be sure to remove your anthropic
bias that
you happen
to exist in an extremely brief period of aparent order)
The cycle of integration and disintegration is an ordered process. At any
given point, the state of that system *seems* random, *seems* chaotic. It's
simple geometry. It takes 2 points to define a line, takes 3 to define a
plane. The order may not be apparent in three dimensions, though it is in
four.
Which is, I think, a splendid
metaphor for the concept of God that Chas offers.
Utter *****.
You'd know it if you knew it. Does the thought that some people see as
plainly evident what you cannot threaten you? Perhaps that is the reason
you cannot see it.
Under that perception of
Chaos Theory, the ultimate question becomes if the universe could be
seen in
all it's dimensions, in all it's totality, would it appear as order or
chaos?
Completely irrelevant as to the non-existance and non-necessity of god.
Irrelevant to the necessity question, but not the existence question.
I don't think we will ever have an empirically meaningful an | | | | | | | | | |
