The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: God is NATURAL????

Re: God is NATURAL????
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Wednesday, March 7 2012, 23:48:57 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
> no prime mover is being invoked or is necessary
>
>Yes, a prime mover would be necessary, but that is not the case. The issue here is the nature of the mover. I presume you are willing to accept quantum flunctuations as a prime mover.

...no need to guess what is in the dark...on the other side of the world. It doesnīt concern us or make any difference to anything real...this whole business about how there HAS to be a prime mover, or designer, or fixer, or first cause, is just the foolishness of the Church trying to sneak SOME notion of a god in there...youīre playing Augustine again...once someone admits the "need" for a prime mover, or designer, or gardener, weīre back at God...and we dont need to go there any more....there is no God simply because the people who SAY there is, canīt prove itī(just as there is no Easter Bunny because the people who say there is canīt prove it)...so we need not waste time over prime movers or designers or gardeners or drivers or any of that rot...kay? Iīm not going to respond to any of those kinds of comments again because it has been settled...there is no pig on Mars either...so enough alright already.
>
> Darwin never said he had an answer for where life came from
>
>I was trying to say that anything that goes on within the universe must have a material explanation. Darwin was just an example.

...you donīt know that it MUST...you can presume all you want to.
>
>The notion that an event within the universe may have a supernatural explanation would simply be undermining the idea of a supernatural creator. God would then be like a programmer who writes codes for a software and then goes back again and again to add and remove codes, update the software, make sure it's still working.

...I told you, stop babbling about what you canīt prove...there is no god...if you say there is (and you said you werenīt going to), then before you tell me what he wears I will ask you to PROVE he even exists...if you refuse to discuss the probabality of my pig I donīt see why you assume I want to discuss the existence or mannerisms of your god..and also weīre back where we started from with you NOT being able to prove it but telling me you believe it to be so, and me telling you that a flying pig on Mars is just as likely and could be "believed" in by any number of people...which would make neither your god nor my pig a reality.

God, being perfect, does not need to create a universe that requires his constant interference. It is a universe that functions all on its own.

....as you can see you are inventing not only a god, but what he can and canīt do, as if he communicated this to you or you were so super-bright that you figured it out on your own...or, did he talk to you? This is just so much wool-gathering, using five dollar words in an attempt to appear "deep"....not productive of anything.
>
> I remind you of the pigs on Mars?
>
>Oh no... not again! I already explained why pigs on mars has nothing to do with the discussion.

...and I explained why your god has nothing to do with it either...the only thing we agreed to discuss is why people need to or want to BELIVE in your god...or my pig...weīre way beyond the point of proving that your pig or my god exists....okay?
>
> Because you canīt prove they DONīT exist, doesnīt mean they MIGHT
>
>No. As Hawking (who is an atheist) said, if the universe had a beginning, then God might exist.

...I donīt care what Issac Newton said about astrology...I donīt care what Hawking says about god...we settled it, god does not exist because those who claim he MIGHT or MUST have never proven it, and never will...just like those pigs on Mars...no one has proven anything about them either way...if you say they donīt exist I will say they MIGHT...and so on and so forth.....itīs all very simple, it is simple because we are dealing with a simple-minded concept..a simpletonīs concept...gods were invented by us in our intellectual infancy...itīs just taking a long time for most of us to grow up...including Newton and Hawking.

The idea that the universe has existed since eternity is put to doubt by the fact that it is expanding. Since it's likely that the universe had a beginning, God becomes a possibility.

...nonsense....sophistry again posing as a "problem" worthy of solution....the wisest man ever, Socretes said, "live a good life"...the rest is foolishness.
>
> a salutation to me from him, through you, is not EVIDENCE
>
>It is. I did see him yesterday, and he did send you his regards. He also said he wants to drop you a visit. Are you free next week?

...sort of funny...but not to the point...I am saying I need evidence, not your word for it...but nice try.
>
> knowledge is quantifiable, not like faith and miracles...knowledge can be tested objectively
>
>If there is a God,

...If there were flying pigs, or any kind, on Mars..what would the universe look like? See how by substituting just one word you all of a sudden "grow up" and realize this is silly? I have the same reaction when you talk about the existence of your god.

...I thought we agreed that we would confine ourselves to why people BELIEVE in your god...or in my pig. It is the belief that interests me...I already know there is no god as you know there is no pig on Mars...Iīll stop bringing my pig into the conversation if youīll keep your god out of it.

then what would the proof look like? You want to test God objectively? You want a group of scientists to examine God, quantify him, perform experiments on him, and then declare officially that there is a God? Is that what you mean by proof?

....no, let him step before my eyes or the eyes of anyone I trust, or the world trusts...with all his miracles it shouldnīt be too hard for him to appear...then we can solve this nonsense once and for all...no need to test him at all...and we donīt need science once he appears, riding a cloud or however he is said to manifest himself.....jut his presence will be proof enough for me...Iīm not going to argue with him about how much he can bench-press.
>
>Please call an ambulance.
>
> do you think that EVERY word you utter is worthy of a response?
>
>Of course.
>
> yet I do, because it would be rude
>
>It is not in your nature to be rude.
>
> Issac Newton,the greatest scientist of his age...a man famous all over Europe when such things were hard to achieve, believed in...
>
>Yes but Arno Penzias was comparing scientific observation with what is written in the bible. It is not a matter of belief. There is also MIT physicist Dr. Gerard Shroeder who wrote a book concerning this subject.

...what they BELIEVE is what they believe. A world-famous physicist can believe fairies exist, or he could belieev that Saddam had WMDs...that doesnīt mean they exist. We are not talking about believing in the EXISTANCE of god...Dr Saulk did not just BELIEVE in a cure for polio, he found one and DEMONSTRATED it...believing is nothing, it is faith, it is conjecture etc., we are talking about evidence about proof for fantastic claims of supernatural beings who can suspend the Laws of Nature for YOUR benefit....I doubt Hawking has any kind of belief in this sort of god.....but this is all besides the point...as we said before, the person making the fantastic claim bears the burden of proof....Hawking can appear in court and say he BELIEVES that I shot his dog, but that is HEARSAY and reamins so no matter WHO utters it, Hawking, or Einstein or anyone else....and hearsay is inadmissable evidence in a trial for PETTY THEFT...it can hardly be accepted for the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE!!! Do you finally get it?
>



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9