- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 3,844
- Location
- Louisville, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Jerry said:
God Made Guns?
Freakin' No Way.....
Jerry said:God made those just as he made the Beaver’s dam and the Eagle’s nest.
Glock.tecoyah said:God Made Guns?
Freakin' No Way.....
tecoyah said:God Made Guns? Freakin' No Way.....
As is becoming more common recently, Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no data supporting the claim that God made anything at all, much less beaver dams, eagle nests, vibrators, or guns. Logically, in fact, if anyone dares claim that God is a prerequisite for something to exist, then that does not explain any claim of God's existence. Ergo, since at least one thing (God) must be able to exist without needing God as the Source of that existence, there is no reason to claim that everything else requires God, in order to exist. Assuming God exists, the "mechanism" that produced God could well have produced the physical Universe, independently. And inside that Universe, Evolution is as associated with beaver dams as beavers, and with eagle nests as eagles (and with human tools as humans).Jerry said:But no, really, Future can explain it better than I can.
That's quite a change of tune from the one you had when, maybe a month ago, you agreed with me that cars and jet aircraft are as naturally occurring as beaver dams. In fact, you used "beaver dams" as your example in that agreement.FutureIncoming said:As is becoming more common recently, Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no data supporting the claim that God made anything at all, much less beaver dams, eagle nests, vibrators, or guns. Logically, in fact, if anyone dares claim that God is a prerequisite for something to exist, then that does not explain any claim of God's existence. Ergo, since at least one thing (God) must be able to exist without needing God as the Source of that existence, there is no reason to claim that everything else requires God, in order to exist. Assuming God exists, the "mechanism" that produced God could well have produced the physical Universe, independently. And inside that Universe, Evolution is as associated with beaver dams as beavers, and with eagle nests as eagles (and with human tools as humans).
Jerry said:That's quite a change of tune from the one you had when, maybe a month ago, you agreed with me that cars and jet aircraft are as naturally occurring as beaver dams. In fact, you used "beaver dams" as your example in that agreement.
If I can find a key word search for threads I'll go back and see if I can find your quote.
Gah...sweeet!Kelzie said:Maybe this one:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html
Or this one:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html
Merry Christmas sugar.You can do it yourself under "Advance Search"
Kelzie said:Maybe this one:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html
Or this one:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html
Merry Christmas sugar.You can do it yourself under "Advance Search"
FutureIncoming said:Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no data supporting the claim that God made anything at all, much less beaver dams, eagle nests, vibrators, or guns.
Jerry said:That's quite a change of tune from the one you had when, maybe a month ago, you agreed with me that cars and jet aircraft are as naturally occurring as beaver dams. In fact, you used "beaver dams" as your example in that agreement.
I have examined the specified postings (from about 6 months ago), and extracted what seems to be the relevant parts below:Kelzie said:Maybe this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html Or this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html
FutureIncoming said:I see your delusion perfectly. You somehow think that human actions are not Natural, even though humans, like beavers, are products of Nature. Beaver dams are Natural but human dams aren't? MORE idiotic stupidity. A human shooing a fly is as Natural as a horse swishing its tail for the same purpose. A farmer butchering a hog is as Natural as a pod of killer whales feasting on a blue. Therefore your statement, "deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable" IS PURE PREJUDICE. Not to mention you are saying that if a terrorist shoots at you, you are not allowed to shoot back. Terrorists are those who, to paraphrase an idiom, "live by the gun", and hence are Traditionally allowed to "die by the gun". WHOSE gun shouldn't matter. The problem with your statement is that it is UNSUPPORTED AND NOT PRECISE. What you SHOULD have written is something like, "persons should generally not kill other persons, because they are thereby generally inviting their own deaths (although exceptions do happen)". In this way we can hope to avert an interstellar war with nonhumans who we might happen to think look ugly (and who probably in turn would think we look ugly). Persons can UNDERSTAND things like The Golden Rule. Unborn humans, however, understand absolutely nothing. That is why they are not persons and that is why they need not be included in guidelines for persons.
As you can plainly see, none of that claims God is responsible for anything. I am quite consistent, therefore, in saying, in essence, "to claim that God is responsible, is to make just another unsupported claim".FutureIncoming said:BAD LOGIC. Humans are PART of Nature, which is why Natural Mindless Biology is associated with human bodies. So, if humans are part of Nature and beavers are part of Nature, why is a beaver dam called "natural" while a human dam isn't? It is LOGICAL that since humans are part of Nature, ALL human actions are "Natural"!!! **HOWEVER** one reason to make a distinction is due to Free Will. **IT**IS**NOT** part of Natural Mindless Biology. We acquire it through Quantum Physics and the Uncertainty Principle, while Natural Mindless Biology is pretty much just a cause-and-effect system. Free Will wouldn't BE what it is, if only cause-and-effect ruled. THEREFORE, we DON'T have to pay attention to what Nature has to say about Right-to-Life, and so we DO make a political claim about it. ALSO, we can and do use that same Free Will to specify which organisms do and do not need to have our political Right-to-Life extended to them. Unborn humans can be exempted BECAUSE we have Free Will, and they don't, EXACTLY like most ordinary animals are exempted for the same reason. SIMPLE LOGIC.
I wasn't contesting your God concept.FutureIncoming said:I have examined the specified postings (from about 6 months ago), and extracted what seems to be the relevant parts below:
As you can plainly see, none of that claims God is responsible for anything. I am quite consistent, therefore, in saying, in essence, "to claim that God is responsible, is to make just another unsupported claim".
They are all the products of "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God".tecoyah said:God Made Guns?Jerry said:God made those just as he made the Beaver’s dam and the Eagle’s nest.
Freakin' No Way.....
You haven't been doing a very good job of it. Where is your response to this?Jerry said:I was contesting the existence of a 'right to die'.
Well?FutureIncoming said:Dare you imply that there is a requirement to force some organism to stay alive? {{and}} So, to clarify the preceding, if a right-to-life exists, then so also does exist a right-to-death. If a right-to-life does not exist, well, that is a simple acknowledgement of the perfectly Natural fact that death can happen already at any time from a large variety of possible causes, so suicide is included automatically as a possible cause. Simple.
Yes, I was aware of those premises.Jerry said:My remarks to talloulou were under the premise that 1. there is a God, and 2. God made everything.
I am agnostic about the first, which is why I say that you shouldn't use that premise in a Debate unless you can support the claim. The second, however, is just plain irrational, and I have supported that claim:Jerry said:If you disagree with those premises, fine,
That is, the Nature of the Cosmic All is greater than God, not the other way around, because that Nature allowed God, if exists, to come into existence. Nor does any existence of God eliminate that Nature as a Source for other things to come into existence. So, simple logic shows us that God couldn't make everything, and your second premise is therefore indeed irrational/impossible.FutureIncoming said:Logically, in fact, if anyone dares claim that God is a prerequisite for something to exist, then that does not explain any claim of God's existence.
It is not an error to point out an obvious error, especially when in a Debate the error is the basis of an argument. Your cooperation is not required for anything other than to acknowledge the existence of the error. If you disagree with the logic and data that expose the error, then you should be able to provide better logic and data. So far, you have not done any such thing in this case (and seldom have done it in other cases).Jerry said:... but please do not digress and degrade the exchange between her and I by contesting those premises and expecting cooperation.
The don't need their own Threads. The assumption that they do depends on the notion that large amounts of information --logic-and-support-data-- must be exchanged, when in fact only small amounts of indisputable data are necessary. A major cause for a Thread to drag on is people who ignore counter-data and continue to make unsupported claims (including newly-joining Debaters who don't review the Thread). When do you plan to either (A) respond to Msg #322, or (B) stop claiming that Objective Value is required for a Debate Argument to be not-ignorable?Jerry said:They are subjects who need their own thread(s), and even if we used the remaining 61 pages in this thread I doubt that any ground would be gained by anyone.
A gun is not the product of the laws of nature....good grief...:roll: It's a resultant product of man's desire to kill faster and more efficiently.Jerry said:I wasn't contesting your God concept.
I was contesting the existence of a 'right to die'.
My remarks to talloulou were under the premise that 1. there is a God, and 2. God made everything. If you disagree with those premises, fine, but please do not digress and degrade the exchange between her and I by contesting those premises and expecting cooperation. They are subjects who need their own thread(s), and even if we used the remaining 61 pages in this thread I doubt that any ground would be gained by anyone.
Sorry to reference your ability to illustrate nature. I didn't mean to offend.
***
So tecoyah, hows abouts I try a second time.....
They are all the products of "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
A "right to die" is not.
FutureIncoming said:When do you plan to either (A) respond to Msg #322, or (B) stop claiming that Objective Value is required for a Debate Argument to be not-ignorable?
"[M]an's desire to kill faster and more efficiently" is the law of nature from which the gun comes.ngdawg said:A gun is not the product of the laws of nature....good grief...:roll: It's a resultant product of man's desire to kill faster and more efficiently.
And we do have a right to die of sorts-we can refuse medical intervention that would prolong our suffering. We can 'pull the plug'. What we don't have is the right to step in and override that first right without just and legal cause.
I'm going to put myself in check on that.Jerry said:"[M]an's desire to kill faster and more efficiently" is the law of nature from which the gun comes.
It's the whole flesh -v- spirit conflict.
The fleshly desire of Man is to kill faster and more efficiently. The spiritual desire of Man is to live in peace and harm none.
That is the definition, yes. But just because somebody claims something is an axiom, that is not enough, by itself, for it to actually be an axiom. Look up the history of Euclid's ten axioms of geometry sometime. All went unquestioned for more than a millenium and a half, and then all were questioned, and one was found wanting. Likewise have I questioned your claimed "axiom" and found it wanting.Jerry said:Axioms are self proving, "self evident" truths.
That is your claim. Going against that claim is the well-recognized fact that minds assign valuations, and different minds assign different values --including zero-- to different things. Why is it not obvious to you that if some particular thing really had Objective value, then every mind that encountered it would value it greater-than-zero, even if not identically? Yet there is not anything which has that characteristic! Atheists assign zero value to the notion of God, for example. Suicides assign zero value to their own lives, for another example. Why is it not obvious to you that if your claim is correct, then there would be obvious holes in both of the possible proofs I've previously offered (toward the end of http://www.debatepolitics.com/328906-post39.html ) --and yet you have not even tried to point out any holes?Jerry said:Objective Value is axiomatic.
I don't necessarily lack an ability to see Objective Value. First it has to exist to be see-able! An ordinary human raised in an environment totally lacking in the color red will still have the ability to see that color, should it eventually be encountered. Your mere claim that Objective Value exists is, in a Debate, something "positive" that can require substantiation. Your feeble attempt to avoid offering substantiation, even by failing to point out any holes in the possible proofs I offered, does you no credit at all.Jerry said:If you lack the ability to see Objective Values now, ...
You are exhibiting all the traits of someone who has chosen to believe nonsense instead of sense. Why do I want to change my mind, currently believing the sensible, into believing the nonsensical?Jerry said:... then there is nothing I can say to change your mind.
Art Bell welcomed Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, who offered analysis of the Global Consciousness Project and discussed his new book Entangled Minds. The Project measures the movement or "ocean" of consciousness through changes in random number generators that are set up around the world, he explained. Eight years of data looking at 204 major world events has shown that a kind of "coherence" takes place associated with these incidents, in which the numbers become less random. The overall odds against chance of this occurring are roughly 300,000 to 1, Radin reported. Further, these types of results were mainly associated with populated areas, indicating that consciousness was the variable in the changes.
Author Maurice Cotterell shared his knowledge of ancient encoded secrets and the Holy Grail. He also traced how Sun-worshipping civilizations such as the Mayas of Mexico and the Viracochas of South America experienced reincarnations of the "son of God."
Astrophysicist Dr. Bernard Haisch presented his views which offer a bridge between science and spirituality. Arguing that the universe was brought about by an "infinite intelligence," he believes this intelligence's purpose is to experience and enrich itself through its various aspects and life forms. Further, we are not disconnected from this intelligence, but a part of it, he said.
Investigative reporter Randall Fitzgerald believes that the interaction of synthetic chemicals is wreaking havoc on human health and weakening people's immune systems. "We're all guinea pigs" in a vast chemical experiment, he said, arguing that western medicine is based on a synthetic paradigm in which ailments are treated by non-natural drugs that cause side effects, which in turn need to be remedied by more medications.
Writer for Science Magazine, Charles Seife, probed the mind-boggling advances that are taking us to a new understanding of the universe. There's been a scientific revolution in cosmology in the last decade, he said, with the realization that 96% of the universe is not made up of atomic structure, but rather is composed of dark energy and dark matter-- which we know very little about. Yet, he uses the concept of "information theory" --the idea that every particle in the cosmos contains information-- to connect such disparate fields as quantum mechanics and relativity.
***Very creepy!Bob Larson, an expert on cults and supernatural phenomena, returned for a discussion about exorcisms and demonic possession. He said he's been performing exorcisms for thirty years and has worked on thousands of cases, many of which are performed at public seminars. Additionally, he noted that there are more than 100 teams around the country that are trained to conduct such exorcisms. As Protestants, they don't require signs of the supernatural or permission from a church authority, as is done in the Catholic faith, he added.
Filling in for Art Bell, Ian Punnett welcomed 'Historian of the Future' Charles Ostman, who revealed that mankind is approaching a transitional threshold, an Evolutionary Event Horizon, that will require us to either raise our spiritual maturity or face self-destruction.
Statistics Professor Jessica Utts shared the results of her statistical studies in remote viewing and parapsychology. Serving as a statistician for the Remote Viewing research program at SRI, and later as consultant for a government evaluation of the program, she concluded that "psychic functioning has been well established." Her findings showed that when chance would dictate a 25% accuracy rating, subjects delivered a 33% rating, which is considered statistically significant.
Scientist and author Dr. Dean Radin discussed his scientific research into consciousness and psychic phenomena. He reported on the testing of random number generators (called "eggs") which show statistical anomalies where the numbers behave in a less random fashion in relation to certain events.
Author and researcher Michael Cremo discussed the evidence for "extreme human antiquity." Texts in ancient Sanskrit described previous civilizations that had high technology and he said he's found similar material across a number of ancient cultures. Cremo suggested a number of civilizations, far predating ones from the last 10,000 years, have come and gone, wiped out by various earth changes. According to different wisdom traditions, humanity goes through cycles such as Bronze and Iron Ages or what is called yugas by the Hindu.
Richard C. Hoagland is the founder of Enterprise Mission, a research group that investigates the scientific possibility of ET artifacts across the solar system. The Kansas School Board has taken a brave position, he said, in their declaration that the Darwinian system isn't the only view. Hoagland finds this hopeful since it may open up schools to presenting alternative evolutionary theories, such as the idea he espouses-- directed panspermia, which posits that life was spread throughout the galaxy by an intelligent species.
Mike Heiser (michaelsheiser.com) received a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and ancient Semitic Languages. He now works for Logos Bible Software, a company that specializes in analyzing ancient texts. A theist, he is not persuaded by the idea that life developed out of a vacuum, and still sees a need for some kind of intelligent causation.
Stan Tenen has a B.S. in Physics from Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and is the Director of Research for the Meru Foundation. He argued that the intelligent design claim is outside of the realm of science and therefore a belief system. Rather than subscribing to this particular ideation, he suggested that life is universal and that the geometry of space-time contributes to evolution. For more of Tenen's discourse, view this page he created in tandem for the show.
I've been doing some vacationing, and didn't see your post until after the weekend had passed. Most of what you wrote about I have heard about before, however.Jerry said:Coast to Coast am is having a free weekend this weekend. I thought that you might find the following shows of interest:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?