Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are right...Some people will say "that's bull" when you mention "GOD". The 10% like you
And the Christians (you know, a bit part of that alleged 90% in the west) who've told you your idea that nature = god is a heresy. Why don't you listen to what they're saying - don't these vast numbers of people who disagree with you sway you to believe what they do instead?
Of course not, because you don't really believe this "numbers = correct" nonsense you've been posting.
Ah, I thought so. If you think this is an argument against Occam's Razor, you obviously don't know what that concept is. It's not "simplest is right". No wonder you come up with such irrational ideas and think they're science - you don't even understand the basics of what is and isn't scientific.
Someone's understanding of science (and many other things) is definitely in question here . . . but it is NOT mine. Ockham's is NOT scientific . . . "non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" . . . and it is the "necessary" criterion that is in dispute . . . and yes at its heart the "rule of thumb" is don't unnecessarily complicate.
Quote:
When you wrote this, did you intend to generate anything other than a random mix of sciency-sounding words?
Nothing you've said here gets out of the problem that if nature is god and god is creator of the universe, then god created itself before it existed.
As Dave Allen (RIP) said in my favorite parody of Catholic nuns . . . "God is . . God was . . . and God always will be." I call it the "Conservation of God" principle . . . you may use a different name . . . like energy??? BTW . . so you will not continue to seem uneducated . . . read up on panENtheism.
Quote:
What range, exactly, and how do you know and measure this?
You know . . . anything that is "alive."
Quote:
No, but I do apparently have problem making sense of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Don't be so modest . . . it seems far more extensive than that.
New species come about by chance mutation and natural selection.
New vehicles of transportation come about by design and engineering.
Which one is the more intelligent thought on the understanding of intelligence as that being measured with IQ tests?
Both ideas are well supported by evidence, so it's hard to say which is more intelligent.
Quote:
Beware of people who can combine words in correct spelling and can respect rules of grammar, as to produce text sentences that demand attention from readers, but leave them wondering, at a loss for genuine sense and meaning
It may be, if I could figure out what the heck you are saying...Most of your posts make no sense to me...I do understand your insults towards atheists though.
Near as I can tell, we're playing the game of "you're wrong because you disbelieve in the wrong idea of god, and I'm not going to tell you what the right idea of god is". That way, unless we magically guess what random god concept's been invented here, we get to continue to be wrong because we're not believing in the wrong god. Since it would only be correct to not believe in the correct god we can't correctly disbelieve only by lacking belief in the the wrong gods. And we'll never hear the characteristics of the real god, because that means there's a chance we won't believe in it too. That would be devastating to someone who's convinced themselves that their idea of god is so overwhelming that everyone would believe in it if they just knew what the heck it actually was.
There's also going to be lots of bait and switch due to the lack of description of the correct god to disbelieve in - e.g. going from a generic "god = nature" to specific questions about Biblical creationism as the discussion requires - but ignore those issues for now.
Someone's understanding of science (and many other things) is definitely in question here . . . but it is NOT mine. Ockham's is NOT scientific . . . "non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" . . . and it is the "necessary" criterion that is in dispute
Hey, last minute internet research does give results! But why is the necessary part in dispute if the whole concept is not scientific. Seems that either you'd reject the idea completely or say the concept is right and my stuff is necessary. "My client didn't kill that woman and even if he did, she had it coming because she wouldn't date him" ... Uh yeah, that's convincing.
Quote:
You know . . . anything that is "alive."
So your ideas tell us that anything which is alive is alive. That's my point - you throw in a lot of unnecessary entities that add nothing to the conversation. It's not like you need an omnipresent universal field god which created itself before it existed to know that living things are alive.
And I can't help but notice you're running away from providing any sort of explanation of what specific frequencies of energy or whatever are a criteria for life. You seemed so sure a few days ago, now it's like you don't even know the basics. These ideas sound really interesting until you poke them a bit - and that seems to let out all the hot air and leave them a bit deflated, if you'll pardon the analogy.
Near as I can tell, we're playing the game of "you're wrong because you disbelieve in the wrong idea of god, and I'm not going to tell you what the right idea of god is". That way, unless we magically guess what random god concept's been invented here, we get to continue to be wrong because we're not believing in the wrong god. Since it would only be correct to not believe in the correct god we can't correctly disbelieve only by lacking belief in the the wrong gods. And we'll never hear the characteristics of the real god, because that means there's a chance we won't believe in it too. That would be devastating to someone who's convinced themselves that their idea of god is so overwhelming that everyone would believe in it if they just knew what the heck it actually was.
There's also going to be lots of bait and switch due to the lack of description of the correct god to disbelieve in - e.g. going from a generic "god = nature" to specific questions about Biblical creationism - but ignore those issues for now.
Whining about the problems involved in separating out what we know scientifically about God (your "Nature") and what is only BELIEVED (like "mindless, purposeless, indifferent" or "Consciousness as universal field" or "bearded man," etc.) . . . is pointless.
I am so disappointed that you cannot be intelligent as to know that God which Christians today know to exist is also already updated and upgraded as to be in consonance with the latest knowledge of man today about the material universe.
Correction. That should read....
"I am so disappointed that you cannot be intelligent as to know that God which Christians today believe to exist is also already updated and upgraded as to be in consonance with the latest knowledge of man today about the material universe."
See Ryrge...if you insist that you Christians KNOW your god exists I would have to ask why so much has been posted about having 'faith'. Why exactly is faith so important in your belief if your belief is actually true. Faith, in the face of truth becomes redundant, obsolete. Why do you need it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
That is why I keep on seeing in atheists unintelligent thoughts, when they keep on and on and on about gods which today are already passé.
Doesn't that say something to you? Why do you think that all the other gods in the history of humanity that people have really, truly believed existed with all their heart to the point of killing and dying for them....are now accepted as myth? You can see that every one of them now rest upon the dusty shelf of mythology, even though millions of people believed, with every fibre of their body, that they were real. The future will see a time when Yahweh and Jesus sit amongst those that have gone before them.
Whining about the problems involved in separating out what we know scientifically about God (your "Nature") and what is only BELIEVED (like "mindless, purposeless, indifferent" or "Consciousness as universal field" or "bearded man," etc.) . . . is pointless.
There's no problem separating what we know scientifically about God from what is believed. Everything goes into the second category. It's pretty simple. No believers can even tell us in remotely scientific terms what their god is, so it's not even conceptually possible for there be evidence for them. No possible scientific observation is going to support something which makes no scientific claims.
I'll give believers credit for evolving this sort of approach to god - it's better than trying to make their god scientific and then getting it ripped apart as it crashes head-long into the rocks of actual scientific observation.
There's no problem separating what we know scientifically about God from what is believed. Everything goes into the second category. It's pretty simple. No believers can even tell us in remotely scientific terms what their god is, so it's not even conceptually possible for there be evidence for them. No possible scientific observation is going to support something which makes no scientific claims.
I repeat for those who ignore what others say and continue to proclaim their nonsense in ignorance of the facts. I CLAIM absolutely EVERYTHING science has ever learned and verified as evidence of "attributes," "laws" and "processes" designed by God. Is that enough scientific claims for you KC. Dispute it. Scientifically establish that it is NOT evidence of God without merely asserting that it is only evidence of YOUR God("Nature"). You see . . . ALL are free to claim the existing scientific evidence for their version of God . . . not just you. The rest of their beliefs (like yours about mindless, indifferent, purposeless, etc.) are moot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
