What if there is no God?

[Spartacus FPV]

**** I do not smoke, as cleanliness is next to Godliness.

During the Russian revolution of 1912, the athiests/Zionists in charge had slaughtered more than 20 million Christians in the name of their totalitarian/Communist God.

If you cannot see hate in vengence in everything the liberal media and liberal leaders spew on a daily basis toward this president, and toward our troops--then you haven't been paying attention. In contrast, the Republicans/Conservatives represent what is good in America (Christianity).

What does smoking have to do with cleanliness?

What does what some communists did a century ago have to do with atheists today?

You say you represent Christianity but there is nothing Christly about you, you only pay his teaching lip service.

 

[doughgirl]

Lachean said, “What does smoking have to do with cleanliness?”

Pleazzze. Just look at an ashtray, sit next to someone who has been smoking, or look at a lung x-ray of a smoker. Smoking is a filthy filthy habit. Why do you think people are trying to get it banned everywhere? In your opinion what is so clean about it?

Lachean you also said, “You say you represent Christianity but there is nothing Christly about you, you only pay his teaching lip service.”

Are you a believer to be able to even ask that question?

 

[Gibberish]

**** I do not smoke, as cleanliness is next to Godliness.

During the Russian revolution of 1912, the athiests/Zionists in charge had slaughtered more than 20 million Christians in the name of their totalitarian/Communist God.

So you say. Where are your sources, or did God tell you this?

Let's break down your logic here. You call them atheists but then say they believe in a totalitarian/Communist God. Which is it? If you atheists you don't believe in a deity. You also call them Zionists, which is not an atheist and believes in the same God as Christianity, they just don't believe Christ was the messiah. I never new God could have a political agenda. If the Christian God was labeled politically it would be Fascist. God has say over everything and dictates every aspect of followers lives.

From my history there was the Russian revolution of 1905 (which included Black Sunday) and the political revolution of 1917. Stalin is the only Russian I can find linked to killing around 20 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_revolution_of_1905
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html

 

[Gibberish]

***Hate and vengence? You must have me mixed up with one of your atheist liberal pals. I preach nothing but love here by setting a righteous example for all to follow.

Yes you just radiate love and compassion in every post you make. Liberals hate Bush for a war that costs trillions and the killings tens of thousands of people. I don't agree with their conclusions but I do see their point. Liberals and atheists are two different people, you can be liberal and be atheist.

Here is a chocker for you. Not all Republicans and/or conservatives are Christian.

 

[doughgirl]

What if there is no god?

Then I guess all those who led godly lives and held to some sort of moral code…..then realize they could have done anything they wanted to anyone with no penalty at all…and all those who did whatever they wanted to others could have done many more horrible things to people than what they did.

Because if God didn't make us, and we are nothing, then who the heck cares what we do to each other? And if there is no god, why shouldn't’t we be able to do anything we want? Who has the right to stop any one of us? Who cares about order?

Personally I can’t even comprehend that we came from nothing, that we were byproducts of a purposeless process, just byproducts of time and chance and random forces. It just doesn't make sense to me. I believe.

What does unbelief offer to man? Nothing. Life becomes cheap. Look at society today, abortion, infanticide, the killing of the elderly…. now the push for cloning.


Life is a continuous search for answers not only with religion but many different things. And people find comfort not only in religion but money and material things and possessions. You're just looked at today as weird if you have faith in God.
But don't people put their faith in many things they can’t prove? They do it because every worldview is based on faith. Its based on some kind of assumption or presupposition that we probably have never or will never prove. And many of them can’t be proven. Even scientists operate on faith, some have the guts to admit it and some don’t. But they are not ridiculed, people of faith are.

Ya know Christianity has always been attacked and it always will be. Example: Creationism today is looked at as religious, evolution is looked at as scientific, although nothing has been proven and it’s still just a theory. Neither meets the demands of science….. (Observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable) The fact is neither evolution or creationism is any of those. Yet in our schools we teach evolution as being fact and we teach kids that if they believe in God and creationism they are weak minded and illogical.


Maybe the question we should all be asking is, can man live without God? Just look around at the state we are in today….I think the answer is obvious.

I wonder why God would even want to bless our country. I think in time He will just walk away...then people will really see what its like to live without Gods presence.


“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the WISDOM of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:20


“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.” 1 Timothy 6:20-21

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What if there is no god?

Then I guess all those who led godly lives and held to some sort of moral code…..then realize they could have done anything they wanted to anyone with no penalty at all…and all those who did whatever they wanted to others could have done many more horrible things to people than what they did.

Society will hold you accontible for your actions.

Because if God didn't make us, and we are nothing, then who the heck cares what we do to each other? And if there is no god, why shouldn't’t we be able to do anything we want? Who has the right to stop any one of us? Who cares about order?

Because we werent created from a divine being we are nothing? Where is your self worth? Where is your sense of the meaning of life?

If there is no god, you are still accountable for your actions.

Personally I can’t even comprehend that we came from nothing, that we were byproducts of a purposeless process, just byproducts of time and chance and random forces. It just doesn't make sense to me. I believe.

Evolving from the very rare conditions that allow for life doesnt make us nothing, or purposeless. It just means we get to define our own purposes. Live life as you see fit, why do you need a guidebook from above?

What does unbelief offer to man? Nothing. Life becomes cheap. Look at society today, abortion, infanticide, the killing of the elderly…. now the push for cloning.

Is unbelief a word? Disbelievers dont all think life is cheap. If you think stem cell research or cloning makes life worthless, well I dont think you recognise the worth it will mean to the lives saved. Abortion is an issue or personal morality.

Life is a continuous search for answers not only with religion but many different things. And people find comfort not only in religion but money and material things and possessions. You're just looked at today as weird if you have faith in God.
But don't people put their faith in many things they can’t prove? They do it because every worldview is based on faith. Its based on some kind of assumption or presupposition that we probably have never or will never prove. And many of them can’t be proven. Even scientists operate on faith, some have the guts to admit it and some don’t. But they are not ridiculed, people of faith are.

People have faith in things they cannot reason. How do scientists operate on faith? I thought they worked on measureable observations and logic.

Ya know Christianity has always been attacked and it always will be.

Its been attacked for 1700 years, and it wont always be.

Example: Creationism today is looked at as religious

It is because when it comes to proof creationists cite the bible.

Evolution is looked at as scientific, although nothing has been proven and it’s still just a theory.

Do you know what Theory means in science? It doesnt mean guess, ya know the whole we revolve around the sun thing is a "theory."

Neither meets the demands of science….. (Observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable) The fact is neither evolution or creationism is any of those. Yet in our schools we teach evolution as being fact and we teach kids that if they believe in God and creationism they are weak minded and illogical.

I can tell you are a person of faith, so I know nothing I say here will matter either way with you. But since I love wasting my own time, ill give it a shot...

Creationism is based on fiction, assertions, and faith. Science cares not what you want to believe.

The test of science is the scientific method, and there is plenty of data and observations to draw conclusions from in regards to evolution.

Maybe the question we should all be asking is, can man live without God? Just look around at the state we are in today….I think the answer is obvious.

Yep, obviously we live without god every day. I think what you meant to ask is can we spend eternity in the absense of god. That has nothing to do with this physical world that god has no part of.

I wonder why God would even want to bless our country. I think in time He will just walk away...then people will really see what its like to live without Gods presence.

When people say god bless America, they generally mean "and no place else." The idea of him walking away presupposes that he was ever here. What do you think would happen if all Americans suddenly lost their faith? Do you think we would cease to be a moral country?

You dont need religion for morality.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

By far, one of the best point-by-point responses I have seen on this forum to date. I would have addressed each point almost identically, had I had the chance. Nice work, Lachean.

 

[BodiSatva]

I was getti

 

[doughgirl]

“Society will hold you accountable for your actions.”

Why? What right does society have the right to tell me what I can do and I can’t do? Is society always right? Society once said owning slaves was acceptable. In different societies around the world, the rules are much different than ours. Should we have had the right to stop Hitler, Sadam? Anyone for that matter….

“If there is no god, you are still accountable for your actions.”

Why? Many people in society get away with stuff don’t they? Why shouldn't they? What right does anyone have to tell anyone else what is acceptable and what is not? NAMBLA thinks its practices are acceptable. And why aren't they really? You are making society the god of the present. But what right really does any society have to infringe its beliefs/laws on people?

“Evolving from the very rare conditions that allow for life doesn’t make us nothing, or purposeless. It just means we get to define our own purposes. Live life as you see fit, why do you need a guidebook from above?”

You say we can define our own purposes? What if my purpose doesnt align with yours? Charles Manson did his own thing didnt he? So did Ted Bundy?

Who is anyone to tell me what is right and wrong? Your wrong might be my right and vise versa. You say live life as I see fit……then where does society fit in. You said I still should be held accountable. How can I do both?

“People have faith in things they cannot reason. How do scientists operate on faith? I thought they worked on measureable observations and logic.”

Ever heard of Ernest Haeckel? Look him up and read about him.

Evolution is a theory. Darwin himself said it. THEORY. THEORY IS DIFFERENT FROM FACT. Even Darwin recognized that for the cosmos in all of its complexity to have been created by chance is absurd. Do you think that there are not credible scientists who dismissed evolution? Here are just a few who were creationists.
• Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
• Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
• Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
• Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
• Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
• Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
• Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
• Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
• Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
• David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
• Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
• Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
• Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
• Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
• Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
• Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
• Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
• Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
• Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
• Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
• Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
• John Grebe (chemist)
• Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
• William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
• George F. Howe (botanist)
• D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
• James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
• Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
• John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
• Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
• Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
• Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
• Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
• Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
• Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
• James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
• Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
• Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
• Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
• Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
• Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
• Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
• William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
• John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
• Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
• Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
• James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
• Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
• George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
• Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
• William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
• Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
• Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
• Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
• A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
• A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
• John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

In The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Darwin said, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

Darwin also said, “To suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.”

Questions for you...
When one attempts to live without God, aren’t their answers to morality and meaning made up to fit their lifestyle, what they see as right and wrong?
If there is no God and we are in fact the result of random chance processes…it really means that there is no absolute authority. And if there is no one who sets the rules…then can’t everyone do whatever he/she likes and hope they get away with it?

You are saying that there is no god….then based on that statement you say each individual is the creator of their own moral code because there isn’t a universal one from God. There ya go….to each his own.

No human being, no scientist has all the evidence. Why do you think that scientific theories change continuously? As scientists learn new things don't they change their conclusions?
In my opinion people today dont want to accept Christianity because they will not accept that there is a God to whom they are answerable. And when man is viewed as jsut a product of time, matter and CHANCE....there is really no logical reason for treating humans in humane ways. Why? We really then are no different than animals, trees,,,rocks,,,,.


I think Keith and Huxley sum it up well….and were quite honest.

Sir Julian Huxley was asked once why people had so quickly embraced the theory of evolution. He said, “It is because the concept of a Creator-God interferes with our sexual mores. Thus we have rationalized God out of existence, To us, He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in Alice the Wonderland.”

Sir Arthur Keith (physical anthropologist and anatomist 1866-1955) who wrote the forward to Darwins Origin of the Species, 100th anniversary edition said, “Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.”

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

What if there is no God?

Then I will stil have lived my life to the best of my ability to a standard that I feel is worthy.

But that shouldn't be the question. The question that is asked is the soft touch.

The question should be, what if there truly IS a God?
Then where do all those who constantly belittle and insult the believers stand?

 

[rafu007]

hi for those for believe or not believe in god you read the book "the religion of god" written by a spiritual master goharshahi, bellow is a short introduction to the book. it's 100% free online to download.

1. If you follow a religion but are devoid of the Love of God, then those that do not follow a religion but have the love of God are better.

2. Love is connected to the heart. When the Name of God Allah is synchronized with the heartbeat, it then travels through the blood to all the veins, reaches the spirits and awakens them. Then the spirits are rejuvenated and go into the Love of God.

3. Any Name of God in any language is worthy of respect but the original Name of God in the Semitic language is Allah. This (Semitic) is the language of the celestial entities. It is by this Name that the angels call upon God and it is attached to the Title of every Prophet.

4. Any individual who is sincerely searching for God, on land or in the sea is also worthy of respect.

5. Many Adams came into this world, at the same time and in different places. All the Adams were made in the world with clay from this world except the last Adam who is buried in Arabia. He was the only one made in paradise with clay which was also from paradise. With the exception of this Adam the angels did not bow down before any other Adam. Satan became the enemy of the descendants of this Adam.

6. There are seven types of entities in the human body. These are connected to different celestial spheres. They are connected to different heavens and are further connected with different functions within the human body. If these entities are strengthened with light they then resemble the person they are in and travel to many places at the same time. They can travel to the gatherings of Saints and Prophets and even talk to God and see God.

7. Every human being has two religions. The first is the religion of the body which ceases to exist after death. The second is the religion of the soul, which has existed since the beginning of time, the Love of God. It is by this religion that a human being is exalted.

8. Superior to all the religions is the Love of God and superior to all types of worship is seeing God.

9. For information pertaining to the origin of man, the animal, plant and natural world.

10. What type of entities existed before the command of God “Be.” Who is the dog that was exalted as Hazrat Qutmeer and will go to paradise? Who are those people who affirmed their faith at the beginning of time?

for full book go to www.allfaithsuk.com/divineloveenglish/html

or to download www.allfaithsuk.com/book.zip

 

[Gibberish]

What if there is no God?

Then I will stil have lived my life to the best of my ability to a standard that I feel is worthy.

But that shouldn't be the question. The question that is asked is the soft touch.

The question should be, what if there truly IS a God?
Then where do all those who constantly belittle and insult the believers stand?

That is the same question that was asked just on a different side. Believers constantly belittle and insult non-believers and vice versa.

 

[Gibberish]

hi for those for believe or not believe in god you read the book "the religion of god" written by a spiritual master goharshahi, bellow is a short introduction to the book. it's 100% free online to download.

I do not consider an Islamic preacher is to be spiritual master, this man would be a religious master. To me a spiritual master preaches wisdom for the masses, not wisdom directed toward the belief of a singular religion.

Try looking up the work of Osho.

 

[rafu007]

I do not consider an Islamic preacher is to be spiritual master, this man would be a religious master. To me a spiritual master preaches wisdom for the masses, not wisdom directed toward the belief of a singular religion.

Try looking up the work of Osho.

goharshahi is no islamic preacher as his book has been banned in pakistan and many other arab countries.

 

[Thinker]

Even Darwin recognized that for the cosmos in all of its complexity to have been created by chance is absurd.

Please read a little further from the point at which you conveniently stopped
Darwin's quote. What he wrote, including your limited extract, was:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of
light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a
perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being
useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary
ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case;
and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal
under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though
insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

So Darwin was actually saying the opposite of what you tried to suggest.

 

[Thorgasm]

Why? What right does society have the right to tell me what I can do and I can’t do? Is society always right? Society once said owning slaves was acceptable. In different societies around the world, the rules are much different than ours. Should we have had the right to stop Hitler, Sadam? Anyone for that matter….

Do you want to be taken seriously?!? Are you seriously putting Saddam and Hitler in the same juxtapostion? What did we stop Saddam from doing?

But what right really does any society have to infringe its beliefs/laws on people?

When innocent people are victimized?:doh

You say we can define our own purposes? What if my purpose doesnt align with yours? Charles Manson did his own thing didnt he? So did Ted Bundy?

Nothing like the flair for the dramatic! See the previous comment about innocent victims.

Who is anyone to tell me what is right and wrong? Your wrong might be my right and vise versa. You say live life as I see fit……then where does society fit in. You said I still should be held accountable. How can I do both?

Oh! Wow! It's an elemantary course in values!:2razz: Society is the one to tell you right from wrong. I am not saying that it is perfect. It is what it is.

Ever heard of Ernest Haeckel? Look him up and read about him.

Evolution is a theory. Darwin himself said it. THEORY. THEORY IS DIFFERENT FROM FACT. Even Darwin recognized that for the cosmos in all of its complexity to have been created by chance is absurd. Do you think that there are not credible scientists who dismissed evolution? Here are just a few who were creationists.
• Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
• Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
• Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
• Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
• Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
• Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
• Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
• Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
• Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
• David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
• Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
• Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
• Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
• Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
• Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
• Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
• Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
• Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
• Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
• Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
• Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
• John Grebe (chemist)
• Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
• William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
• George F. Howe (botanist)
• D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
• James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
• Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
• John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
• Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
• Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
• Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
• Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
• Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
• Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
• James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
• Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
• Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
• Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
• Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
• Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
• Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
• William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
• John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
• Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
• Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
• James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
• Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
• George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
• Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
• William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
• Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
• Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
• Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
• A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
• A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
• John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

Ernest Haeckel was a philosopher on the side, don't pretend he is purely a scientist. Most of the people on you list are dead. Their conclusions aren't fact. You can play the "theory card" all you want, critical thinkers won't fall for it. Hold a pencil out to your side and let go. Good luck telling me that gravity is just a theory.

Questions for you...
When one attempts to live without God, aren’t their answers to morality and meaning made up to fit their lifestyle, what they see as right and wrong?
If there is no God and we are in fact the result of random chance processes…it really means that there is no absolute authority. And if there is no one who sets the rules…then can’t everyone do whatever he/she likes and hope they get away with it?

Oh, man, you aked for it! Please tell me when we weren't in the "random chance processes". Tell me when we weren't with the trait of free will. Then perhaps you can tell me how freewill and omnipotence exist in the same zero-sum gain.

You are saying that there is no god….then based on that statement you say each individual is the creator of their own moral code because there isn’t a universal one from God. There ya go….to each his own.

And what would that code be, and who is following it?

No human being, no scientist has all the evidence. Why do you think that scientific theories change continuously? As scientists learn new things don't they change their conclusions?
In my opinion people today dont want to accept Christianity because they will not accept that there is a God to whom they are answerable. And when man is viewed as jsut a product of time, matter and CHANCE....there is really no logical reason for treating humans in humane ways. Why? We really then are no different than animals, trees,,,rocks,,,,.

This is direct conflict with the scriptures! :2razz: Either we are superior to the animals or we aren't pick one, god!

I think Keith and Huxley sum it up well….and were quite honest.

Huxley's excuse is beyond lame. Keith's is lame because he offers no proof and just claims that creationism to "too hard to think about". Please study the scientific method.

 

[Tashah]

If there is no God and we are in fact the result of random chance processes…it really means that there is no absolute authority. And if there is no one who sets the rules…then can’t everyone do whatever he/she likes and hope they get away with it?

Firstly, simply because our universe is a fundamentally quantum entity does not address the questions of how or why this came to be. In the corporeal realm of our cosmos, the established laws of Physics are true everywhere (the Cosmological Principle). However, this principle does not extend beyond the moment of its viability. In other words there is no viable way to discern if the genesis event is simply the product of unknown Physics or of deistic wish... because each scenario is beyond our corporeal reality and reach.

Secondly, IMO the notion that anyone can engage in whatever s/he deems as acceptable is a proposition based in moral equivalence. This equivalence proposition is based on the premise that human morality is strictly relative to a particular frame of reference. This philosophy however, would render human understandings of such terms as harmony and anarchy as meaningless. Organization engenders complexity. All life-forms are by definition organized and complex systems. Complexity itself infers the embracment of various beneficial nodes which ensure organizational cohesion. The proposition of human moral equivalence is a philosophical construct that is at odds with the proven tendency of life to organize, acquire beneficial complexity, and thus flourish within a sum total frame of reference.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Why? What right does society have the right to tell me what I can do and I can’t do? Is society always right? Society once said owning slaves was acceptable. In different societies around the world, the rules are much different than ours. Should we have had the right to stop Hitler, Sadam? Anyone for that matter….

Why? Many people in society get away with stuff don’t they? Why shouldn't they? What right does anyone have to tell anyone else what is acceptable and what is not? NAMBLA thinks its practices are acceptable. And why aren't they really? You are making society the god of the present. But what right really does any society have to infringe its beliefs/laws on people?

Ill say this once, society are the people, and the rules the democractically decide on are the will of the people.

You can do what you want, and the only time society will stop you is when your will involves harming another member of society, either by force, violence, or fraud.

I make society the god of the present? Why does something with greater authority have to be equated with GOD. I just dont understand you religious people sometimes. I dont want any god, and I respect the will of the people.

What right? The only rights you have are the ones your society is willing to protect.

You say we can define our own purposes? What if my purpose doesnt align with yours? Charles Manson did his own thing didnt he? So did Ted Bundy?

If it is your purpose to act like serial killer, then I will defend myself. If you purpose is to defend the actions of one, I will ridicule you.

Who is anyone to tell me what is right and wrong? Your wrong might be my right and vise versa. You say live life as I see fit……then where does society fit in. You said I still should be held accountable. How can I do both?

You pick whats right for you, and if what is right for you is bad for society, believe me someome will hold you accountable. Do you have no respect for democracy, justice and rule of law?

Evolution is a theory. Darwin himself said it. THEORY. THEORY IS DIFFERENT FROM FACT. Even Darwin recognized that for the cosmos in all of its complexity to have been created by chance is absurd. Do you think that there are not credible scientists who dismissed evolution? Here are just a few who were creationists.

First of all Dawin spoke on Natural Selection, not evolution. And it is anything but random. Secondly as I said theory has different meanings in scientific terms. Thirdly it isnt the word of Darwin that science considers true, its the whole of peer reviewed oberservations of this world and the many points that line up to suggest evolution.

Creationism on the otherhand isnt science. If you think it is, you have no respect for science or the scientific method.

Questions for you...
When one attempts to live without God, aren’t their answers to morality and meaning made up to fit their lifestyle, what they see as right and wrong?
If there is no God and we are in fact the result of random chance processes…it really means that there is no absolute authority. And if there is no one who sets the rules…then can’t everyone do whatever he/she likes and hope they get away with it?

If there is no god does not mean we are a result of random chance. It just means that century old guess at a diety falls on its face.

There is no absolute authority, that means we have to find our own way, and decide amongst eachother what the rules are.

Everyone can already do what they want and hope to get away with it. But they most likely wont, and will be held responsible for it.

You are saying that there is no god….then based on that statement you say each individual is the creator of their own moral code because there isn’t a universal one from God. There ya go….to each his own.

And what is wrong with deciding for yourself how best to live and pursue taht which makes you happy?

No human being, no scientist has all the evidence. Why do you think that scientific theories change continuously? As scientists learn new things don't they change their conclusions?

Yeah, thats how science works, if something is wrong it has to be proven wrong. You cannot prove the existance of god any better than I can prove that he doesnt exist, but the burden of proof lies with you if I am to change my lifestyle to fit your morality.

In my opinion people today dont want to accept Christianity because they will not accept that there is a God to whom they are answerable. And when man is viewed as jsut a product of time, matter and CHANCE....there is really no logical reason for treating humans in humane ways. Why? We really then are no different than animals, trees,,,rocks,,,,.

If you think there is no logical reason to treat humans in a humane way because there is no god, yours is a false sense of morality.

People dont accept Christianity because of the conflicts with reason, the nature of altruism that Jesus preaches, and the atrocities of the church throughout history. Yours is not the default position.

I think Keith and Huxley sum it up well….and were quite honest.

How about you make your own points instead of saying "These guys said it better"

 

[justone]

Please read a little further from the point at which you conveniently stopped
Darwin's quote. What he wrote, including your limited extract, was:
So Darwin was actually saying the opposite of what you tried to suggest.

Actually doughgirl is suggesting a very reasonable argument. Darwin says: It is absurd, but I can reason it is not. To my taste, his baseless reasoning brings the absurd it to even a higher degree.
There is no reason to suppose the existence of a perfect and complex eye. Such supposition is the highest absurd from the point of view of the universe. It is a pure poetry, it is not a scientific – but a totally subjective and a religious statement (I mean idolizing religions) .
No such thing as a perfect and complex eye exists in the universe.

Even if you try to keep on reading through the piling absurd you would read that each grade being useful to its possessor – which means that even in absurd terms of the writer, each grade achives a perfect and complex eye for its possessor – so mathematically Darwin increases the degree of absurd.

You also can see that Darwin is just poetizing when you look at his use of the definition of complexity.
I know the only definition of complexity which has been introduced by Kolmogorov not so long ago ( and which has been successfully applied for human needs).
And so far I have found the only attempt to apply Kolmogorov complexity to living organisms:
“A possible, suitable definition of the word complexity of an organism is the least number of pieces of information in a list that would be needed to specify the organism completely enough to enable a copy to be constructed from the information in the list alone.’’
It is quite clear that the PERFECTION is opposite to Darwin’s understanding - or I should say feeling of complexity . I would say PERFECTION is the shortest and simplest way of serving a purpose and achieving a result. The more simple, the better it is.

So, what needed to be explained was the increase in complexity, and thus the increase in imperfection... Darwin was not even close to any reasonable explanation.– he did not have a clue what he was talking about.

The only objective observation we know is tendency of the nature (or the universe) to move towards simplicity – but not complexity! All our scientific observations and concluded laws and theories contradict Darwin’s nonsense. It looks to me that the simplest organisms on the Earth are the most adaptive ones, - therefore the right conclusion would be that evolution (if to suppose such a thing) should be moving towards simplicity.
( Also, I am not sure, but I think I have read that real time hand-made experiments with nature-made organisms also demonstrate increase in simplicity for adaptation – if it is true in a single proven experement it would mean that Darwin has been disproved completely by lab experiments)
The only possible exclusions from the tendency to simplicity I can think of may be things handmade by humans, as we discover and apply the simple laws of the universe and reconstruct them with our hands. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that if things are increasing in complexity they are most likely handmade.
The more reasoning Darwin and his followers introduce to me the more I find myself disappointed in Theory of Evolution.

 

[justone]

..In the corporeal realm of our cosmos, the established laws of Physics are true everywhere (the Cosmological Principle). However, this principle does not extend beyond the moment of its viability. In other words there is no viable way to discern if the genesis event is simply the product of unknown Physics or of deistic wish... because each scenario is beyond our corporeal reality and reach.

It is not the first time when I have tried to figure out what your saying – but I have failed again. Reading your writing I feel inherently stupid. You are talking from the highest of complexity to me. Have you ever try to use a more simple and primitive language?

I don’t see the answer for the question, doughgirl – and I - are asking. The question is whether the genesis is the product of established laws of Physics. The validity of the question is based on the theory that there is the genesis event. I don’t know if you can validate the point that there is not, can you?
So, if it is the product of the laws – it exists everywhere. I don’t know about a single observation, even hint in the reality of the universe confirming such theory. So far we only want to find some confirmation – it does not mean yet it exists. Thus I have to think of 2 variants:
1. Cosmological principal – or if to call it correctly the law of universality of laws - is wrong, but we both assume it is right.
2. Established laws of Physics cannot produce the genesis.
I don’t know why but it seems like you are easily accepting such conclusion, and thus you are suggesting just 2 choices:
1. Unknown Physics.
2. Deistic wish.
I cannot understand you concept of Unknown Physics.
What do you mean as unknown physics? Something we don’t know yet but we will know? Something which will be always unknown to us? Some moment when we will know everything and thus we will be able to reconstruct everything with our hands?
I cannot understand your concept of Deistic wish. Is it something which is opposite to unknown Physics? Can it be within the unknown Physics, if the Physics is unknown? Is it something which has to contradict the known Physics ? Is it something which does not follow any laws of known and unknown physics and thus it has the only choice to wish out a lawless and absurd genesis? Is genesis a lawless and absurd event if it is the product of deistic wish in such scenario?

Secondly, IMO the notion that anyone can engage in whatever s/he deems as acceptable is a proposition based in moral equivalence.

Where do you see such proposition? The only proposition which has been made is based in equivalence only – no moral is added or required in the a=b=c=…n equation. You can reduce the equation taking moral out a+m=b+m=c+m=..n+m==
a=b=c=…n

. This philosophy however, would render human understandings of such terms as harmony and anarchy as meaningless.

This is exactly what doughgirl is saying – if anyone can engage in whatever s/he deems as acceptable it makes harmony and anarchy meaningless – and this is exactly what her opponents are arguing against saying that anarchy certainly leads to harmony. And this is exactly what you are trying to prove:

Organization engenders complexity. All life-forms are by definition organized and complex systems. Complexity itself infers the embracment of various beneficial nodes which ensure organizational cohesion. The proposition of human moral equivalence is a philosophical construct that is at odds with the proven tendency of life to organize, acquire beneficial complexity

You are mixing the result with the reason, like a witch. You throw pieces in a pile and you say they will work out glue to hold them in the system. Dughgirl says without you providing the glue they will fall apart.

All life-forms are by definition organized and complex systems.

That is very charming. Let me though suggest that all life forms can be organized and complex only by definition of organization and complexity. On the first place there should be laws according to which things happen. The laws of organization and complexity make appearing life forms organized and complex; but not like you are saying that appearing life forms produce organization and complexity. It is not the result, but the condition of our existence.
''A possible, suitable definition of the word complexity of an organism is the least number of pieces of information in a list that would be needed to specify the organism completely enough to enable a copy to be constructed from the information in the list alone.''

First you have to have the information in the list alone. Life forms are the copy constructed from the list. If there was no list the construction would not be comprehensible for us . But according to Einstein The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible. If by just being a life form we could produce organization and complexity as an immanent result of a definition of a life form, the laws of organization and complexity would never be achievable or established for us at any point and thus they would be meaningless at any point to discuss, - this is what doughgirl is saying. We would be animals living by the laws, but not discussing and comprehending them here. Are you a complete animal?

 

[Thinker]

Actually doughgirl is suggesting a very reasonable argument. Darwin says: It is absurd, but I can reason it is not.

No, he does not. He says it SEEMS absurd.

It is also clear from the context that he is taking the eye as it exists now as
"perfect" in the same sense that creationists use the term when claiming that
the eye is perfect and could not have evolved. He goes on to show how he
could see the eye evolving to what some might now call a perfect form from
less perfect variations.

Even if you try to keep on reading through the piling absurd you would
read that each grade being useful to its possessor – which means that
even in absurd terms of the writer, each grade achives a perfect and complex
eye for its possessor – so mathematically Darwin increases the degree of
absurd.

Nonsense. Each step back makes a different object. Perfection has nothing to
do with it.

The only objective observation we know is tendency of the nature (or
the universe) to move towards simplicity – but not complexity!

So consider a solution of copper sulphate. This can be described simply as a
uniform mixture of the salt and water, low complexity by your own quoted
measure. This has a tendency to form cystals. Would you deny that a
combination of a less dilute solution and a number of highly regular crystals
needs less information to describe it than the solution alone? This
example is enough to show that your premise is wrong.

All our scientific observations and concluded laws and theories
contradict Darwin’s nonsense.

In which case it should be easy to quote one such law and give an example
of how it contradicts Darwin.

 

[Tashah]

It is not the first time when I have tried to figure out what your saying – but I have failed again. Reading your writing I feel inherently stupid. You are talking from the highest of complexity to me. Have you ever try to use a more simple and primitive language?

Perhaps this sentiment says more about the reader than the writer.

I don’t see the answer for the question, doughgirl – and I - are asking. The question is whether the genesis is the product of established laws of Physics. The validity of the question is based on the theory that there is the genesis event. I don’t know if you can validate the point that there is not, can you?

I did answer without reservation. It cannot be determined what inspired the genesis event. Scalar fields? God? Your intuition is as good as mine.

So, if it is the product of the laws – it exists everywhere. I don’t know about a single observation, even hint in the reality of the universe confirming such theory. So far we only want to find some confirmation – it does not mean yet it exists.

This universe is our sentient reality whether you are comfortable with it or not.

Thus I have to think of 2 variants:
1. Cosmological principal – or if to call it correctly the law of universality of laws - is wrong, but we both assume it is right.

Can you point me to one example in the universe where the established laws of Physics and Cosmology do not apply? Be specific here.

2. Established laws of Physics cannot produce the genesis.

The laws of our universe are the result of a broken initial symmetry. In other words, the laws of our universe did not exist at the moment of creation.

I don’t know why but it seems like you are easily accepting such conclusion, and thus you are suggesting just 2 choices:
1. Unknown Physics.
2. Deistic wish.

There are two realms available... the physical or the metaphysical. Can you suggest other possibilities?

I cannot understand you concept of Unknown Physics.
What do you mean as unknown physics? Something we don’t know yet but we will know? Something which will be always unknown to us? Some moment when we will know everything and thus we will be able to reconstruct everything with our hands?

If you do not understand this concept, why are you even engaged in this type of discourse?

I cannot understand your concept of Deistic wish. Is it something which is opposite to unknown Physics? Can it be within the unknown Physics, if the Physics is unknown? Is it something which has to contradict the known Physics ? Is it something which does not follow any laws of known and unknown physics and thus it has the only choice to wish out a lawless and absurd genesis? Is genesis a lawless and absurd event if it is the product of deistic wish in such scenario?

Since I am not blessed with any expertise in deistic power, conjecture and imagination are the only avenues available in this regard. If you are blessed with deistic knowledge however, I beg of you to share.

As far as the remaining portion of your rambling discourse, I would suggest that you delve a bit deeper into the realms of physics, chemsitry, biology, symmetry, chaos theory, and statistical analysis.

Are you a complete animal?

Lol... only when I party.

 

[justone]

It is also clear from the context that he is taking the eye as it exists now as
"perfect" in the same sense that creationists use the term when claiming that
the eye is perfect and could not have evolved.

Frankly I don’t know how creationism use “perfect “. I know the quote from Darwin you’d submitted. Give me a quote from creationists – I will see what I can understand.
As I said the eye can be perfect in the meaning that everything in the universe is perfect in a given record, or in any ohter meaning which id defined. I did not mind Darwin or unknown creationist saying perfect in a defined meaning. I certainly said it hardly could be prefect AND complex, and especially in an undefined – poetical meaning- and I showed why, - pay attention please.

He goes on to show how he
could see the eye evolving to what some might now call a perfect form from
less perfect variations.

Yes, I have read, - again you are using 2 positions, 2 states..
1.perfect.---- what is the definition?
2.less perfect – what is the difference?
I suggested that less perfect should mean more complex.

Nonsense. Each step back makes a different object. Perfection has nothing to do with it.

I always take nonsense from ppl. I am never afraid of saying nonsense. This is the only reason I am still on the forum. I never said step back. It is a definition – or the lack of thereof – you are introducing now. I have no clue what do you mean. If you get up and start moving in my direction – are you stepping back or forward? If I get up and move in your direction?
What measurement are you using for back and forward?

So consider a solution of copper sulphate. This can be described simply as a
uniform mixture of the salt and water, low complexity by your own quoted
measure. This has a tendency to form cystals. Would you deny that a
combination of a less dilute solution and a number of highly regular crystals
needs less information to describe it than the solution alone? This
example is enough to show that your premise is wrong.

Again what measurements are you using for the description? I don’t remember chemistry so much and I would need to research, but just looking at your example and any other chemicals and/or substances unfamiliar to me you can make, I can say that chemicals have transformed from state #1 into state #2, therefore they have gone through the process of increasing entropy, if they were not heated or provided any other kind of energy from a source. Therefore the state #2 is less complex that state #1. A still matter is a lot less complex than a moving matter. Since there is not countable source providing the universe with energy it tends to simplicity, it means that it will die, and thus reach the most possible known simple state.

In which case it should be easy to quote one such law and give an example
of how it contradicts Darwin.

∂S=∂Q/T. The example how is in my previous post. So far you’ve tried to disprove with chemicals in states #1 and #2 – and it does not work. Crystals are dead, still matter which is less complex than moving, energy contenting state of the same matter. The shortest description for crystals is a lot shorter than the shortest description of the same matter in liquid state, therefore the crystals are lot less complex. For your information, the popular theory confirming to tendency of the universe says that you will die and turn into fossils. Your fossils will take a lot shorter description than you today.
And BTW - application of Kolmogorovs definition of cpmlexity, but it #2

 

[justone]

Perhaps this sentiment says more about the reader than the writer.

I certainly like “”perhaps”” and improving of the language – short, simple and almost clear even for the reader.

I did answer without reservation. It cannot be determined what inspired the genesis event. Scalar fields? God? Your intuition is as good as mine.

I do not have intuition, I guess.

This universe is our sentient reality whether you are comfortable with it or not.
Can you point me to one example in the universe where the established laws of Physics and Cosmology do not apply? Be specific here.

Well< I tried to say I believed in universality of laws of Physics throughout the Universe. I guess the misunderstanding of the reader has said about the problems of the writer. Let me repeat I do believe established laws of Physics apply everywhere. I do not believe in Cosmology, but I find it very entertaining, - something I would do if I did not have choices ##1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 – it would be my choice #9.
I do believe the universe is our only known reality. I do not know the word sentient. Let look in the dictionary. Now I do. … Now I forgot again…

The laws of our universe are the result of a broken initial symmetry. In other words, the laws of our universe did not exist at the moment of creation.

I will take it in other words if you don’t mind. I time to think about it . May be I will. I guess I am not sure what do you put in the word creation – ppl put all different meanings in it. It is very entertaining – instantaneous creation of the physical laws of the Universe.
Was it instantaneous or it took some time? For instance I believe the earth was flat one day if there were such records, then it took some time for it to shape into a globe.

There are two realms available... the physical or the metaphysical. Can you suggest other possibilities?

You got me again. I understand physical. I guess I do. Metaphysical does not exist for me because I have no education about it. I just went on wiki and it was too long to read. Though I did run into familiar name of Max Plank. What is he doing over there?
I can suggest only physical, as the only one known to me.

If you do not understand this concept, why are you even engaged in this type of discourse?

Because of curiosity. Because it is not forbidden. Because I did not think that would irritate you. Because it is up to you to refuse to clarify YOUR concept. I guess if you cannot make it simple for people like I am you do not understand it clearly yourself.

Since I am not blessed with any expertise in deistic power, conjecture and imagination are the only avenues available in this regard. If you are blessed with deistic knowledge however, I beg of you to share.

Well, you see in the same way as I did above you engaged in the things you had no expertise in, talking about deity and etc. You can beg, but I will not. Doughgirl already tried – it did not work with you. It is meaningless, like trying to talk to me about metaphysical.

As far as the remaining portion of your rambling discourse, I would suggest that you delve a bit deeper into the realms of physics, chemsitry, biology, symmetry, chaos theory, and statistical analysis.

I already did my time from the bell to the bell. One cannot be sentenced twice for the same thing.
So, see you have nothing to say. I guess I was able to stand up for physics, chemistry, biology, symmetry, chaos theory, and statistical analysis. Well, not exactly so, I hardly passed chemistry – it was too much to memorize, And you can have biology.

Lol... only when I party.

Aren’t we are partying here? You wanna try my beer?

 

[teacher]

I'm posting from my cell, that's why. Good one Tashah. Maybe it's time to start in on you, with just a peek. I keep tabs on you. I got something on you. Solid. Your own words that only you and I have seen. I've dropped a few subtle hints over this last year or so. Don't know if you . . .Anyway, sooner or later the time will arrive. I'm a patient man, and the Warden has in his introduction the decription "Rememberer of Stuff" and "Master of Copy/Paste" to which Champs, my first victim, can attest to as seen in "The Great Monkey Fiasco". I got more . . .But Cu vallance shell electrons are calling me to be cunducted to relays in practical, original, teacher fashion.