NOTE: The material universe exists. Matter comes from energy. Energy also has a source. The source is commonly called God. If the universe does not exist then there is no God. If the universe exists then God exists. Who among your atheists clique will say the universe does not exist? If you can truthfully say that then I can join you. Go ahead now and prove to me that the universe does not exist. Don't try to blow off what I said, folks. Come and reason on it. The logic is simple. You cn try to laugh at and ignore it, speak of me and the logic as "stupid" but guess what, a lot of other people red this too. Who chooses to try to sidetrack this first? You know you cn't prove the universe itself does not exist. Hence there is existence & existence requires Source.
The Improbability of God
by gravedancer 41 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
IslandWoman
to refuse to understand things that have been patiently , repeatedly and clearly explained to you makes you look stupid, rather than just ignorant.
Funkyderek,Thanks, well what can I say. If the shoe fits, right? Yep, that's me!
IW
-
JanH
anewperson,
universe does not exist then there is no God. If the universe exists then God exists.
What is your basis for this assertion?
- Jan
--
The believer is happy. The doubter is wise. -
Mindchild
Island Woman said:
Now THAT is a scary thought! Natural selection by the use of genetic engineering is something way beyond the abilities of mankind to control, to apply responsibly, to use beneficially. Science is great, it has produced fantastic things but there has always been potential for misuse, for harm, for selfish gain etc. The potential for harm is greater than for good, IMO, when it comes to human genetic engineering.
I thought it worth following this point up outside the arguement you were having with Jan. As a scientist myself, I recognize that science in the ideal form (basic research) and science in the applied form (commercailization and politicalization) are two very different things. Many scientists doing basic research dread the misuse of technology and rampant commercialization of discoveries that have economic potential. It seems that it is harder and harder to get grant money to do basic research but much easier to get money to work towards product development and exploitation. To me this commercialization, combined with the fact that politicians are generally criminals or have other motives in mind than the good of the public, presents the greatest danger to society as a whole.
I feel our objective should be to get rid of the source of the problem instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to speak. How to get rid of all the crooks? You got me there. Regardless, consumers can become aware and protest and still influence people. The reason why Europe doesn't have 70% of their foodstuffs in stores genetically modified as the USA does, is because the citizens protested the marketing of untested and potentially dangerous products. In the USA, our motto seems to be, unless we knows it kills you, and until you can discover it kills you, we are going to market it anyway.
Looking at things this way, I believe there will be some gross abuses in this country until the political landscape changes. Maybe after then it might be a little safer but now that we are a global village, and transnational corporations can do what they want someplace else, you still got major problems.
All I can say is that things will probably happen if we want them too or not but we might be able to minimize the outcome of some deleterious situations by protesting, then maybe not.
Skipper
-
gravedancer
What is interesting is the logic being employed in support of a God. I am seeing blind leaps on the part of defenders for example:
The material universe exists. Matter comes from energy. Energy also has a source. The source is commonly called God. If the universe does not exist then there is no God. If the universe exists then God exists. Who among your atheists clique will say the universe does not exist?
Logic is supposed to follow progressive establishment of facts based upon the assertion and obviousness of the prior fact. Although I do not like to quote people out of context perhaps we can look at this logic chain and see where it falls down.Logic always starts with a generally accepted fact:
"The material universe exists."
Very well we can accept that. We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic 92 natural elements. But then there is theoretically an equal amount of anti-matter to matter. Did you include that the universe consists of anti-matter in your line of thinking? What logical path does that take?
"Matter comes from energy."
Matter can be destroyed and turned into pure energy by combining it with antimatter, and energy in some other form can be converted into equal parts of matter and antimatter. This can branch off into all kinds of physics but we will accept your statement. In combining your first two statements I assume you want us to acknowledge that the "universe comes from energy"? While that is not strictly true i will concede that logical progression for now.
Energy also has a source
Yes it does. But what is that source? Where did the source originate? We can conclude from your logic that "the universe has a source". But now for the fall down in your logic...
The source is commonly called God
The source is commonly called God, the big-bang, the cosmic-soup and on and on and on - why not try "the energizer bunny"?. Are you claiming that source had a beginning? We know the equally notorious question "where did God come from?" is an end result no creationist can answer. There is another point - is that source still "alive" or was it a one time event? Is "God - your energy source" dead? There is NO way to know this for sure - is there? This question is important as it points to the flaw...
If the universe does not exist then there is no God.
It has fallen...see if we cannot KNOW that God (the name you assign to the source of all energy) was a LIVING entity and one that survived through all time until now then you have just asked us to rely on the "F" word again!! FAITH. Sorry, but I cannot faith for logic...so your logic chain has broken.Finally, while it is true that no evolutionist/atheist/agnostic or creationist can definitively answer the question. I am about to make the most powerful point I can on the whole argument: SINCE THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE OE ABSOLUTE ANSWER WHY OPT FOR THE ONE THAT PUSHES A MORAL IMPERATIVE ON MANKIND TO SERVE SOME UNKNOWN DEITY?
-
IslandWoman
Mindchild,
You have brought up a subject that is foremost in my life.
You're right the political and economic climate encourages and gives rise to the misuse of science. It also greatly diminshes the concept and greatness of democracy, it makes hollow the words of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and other great works supporting freedom.
I believe that the misuse of government needs to be sounded loud and clear. A coalition of scientists, environmentalists, educators and others who support a change should join forces and make themselves heard, not once, but over and over. There have been times when such has been the case, a group of educators or scientists has come forward to speak out, but then what happens is that most of us never hear from them again. The media opportunity was there, the points were presented but the people forgot!
A herculean effort must be launched to educate the public, education on the dangers and benefits of the genetic engineering of our food for instance, needs to be repeated and repeated. People are so busy, so used to bits of news here and there its easy for them to forget. They need consistent reminding and input on these issues and others, they need leadership.
Thank you so much, your post was so good!
IW
-
thewiz
funkyderek
Ah, resort to labeling with "ignorant" and "stupid" etc. That's how an evolutionist wins their argument. Name calling.
If you don't believe something that has been "established" as "fact" you must be stupid.
Island Women hold your ground don't let these idiots pressure into believing in something that is obviously filled with bullshit.
Bullshit -the eye, simple coming into being from skin cells -those kinds of theories started because all the "missing-links" (slow adaptations that would takes 1000's or millions of years to happen, to have a given outcome, simply can't be found) so evolotionary needs change.
"Uh, yeah, we're going to change that. First there is no eye and then next day, pow, we got an eye. Just like that. No steps in between."
-
gravedancer
I started this thread. Please refrain from insults and name calling. We have enough of that on this board - you want to piss go do it on some other thread.
If we cannot have intelligent discussion then fuck this place - i will be out of here for good.
-
D wiltshire
Nartural selection:
In evolution the use of natural selection and survival of the fitest
may work in the lower species and may be only ONE of many factors that cause the evolution to proceed in the positive direction.
I'm sure there are many more factor that need to be concidered, and that have not been explored enough.Suvival and propagation:
It seems evolution has been programmed for survival and to propagation of the species.
There also seems to be some self limiting factors with reguards to propagation, for the good of the species and other species as well.
The human species seems to be propagating way outside what has for many thousands of years of been "normal" is this part of the evolution prosess and will it impose some limiting factor to bring things back to where it was in the past?
Or will evolution take us to some other next step? Is the next step for man to explore the other dimensions that Science tell us must exist. Will the human species exploit these other dimensionsDoes the life of Jesus Christ, that he gave for the world of mankind figure in the evolution prosess? I think so.
Did God Program the evolution formula into the first 10 to the power of -34 seconds of the expansion ot the 4 dimensional space before or at the enclusion of matter at(10 to the -30 power of seconds) that is spread in a very even and uniform way in universal space?If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
-
D wiltshire
Just wondering does anybody have any thoughts about the above post.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?