Wtf was that drivel?
Posts by Qcmbr
-
97Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
..actually I was just pointing out that , based purely on promises, one god seems to have succeeded.
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
Jehovah said he'd conquer sin, Thor said he'd conquer frost giants....
Just sayin.
-
239
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
by dark angle injust want to share this amazing debate!
caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.
as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.
-
-
Qcmbr
So the only clear statement you made is that life = energy = god.
The sum of all observed energy in the universe is estimated to be zero so god is not.
Life is plainly not simply energy. An atom carries a certain energy state and is not biologically alive or conscious. Or do you think the rocks are thinking? Where you would cheapen life to simply a state of vibration I would present to you that life, as explored by science, is a self organising information set utilising energy gradients to accomplish resource sorting to allow imperfect replication.
All your other statements are inadequate. Since we are discussing your own personal god you are not allowed to suggest that you don't know the answer. I am not interested in using science to refute all possible creators I'm using it to disprove yours. You cannot hide your creator behind someone else's.
-
2
Ace Windows 7 Tip
by Qcmbr intype 'psr' in search field and run the psr.exe.
it pops up the problem steps recorder.
click start and everything you do will get recorded with screen shots and instructions.
-
-
Qcmbr
Did anyone try this...?
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
There are no scientific reasons to believe in magic beings
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
Believers must reject science in order to believe. Science is the study of observed phenomenon. Religion is the generation of imagined events.
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
We do ourselves great harm when we accept the idea that magic is the answer to a problem and not scientifically discoverable natural laws. Magic thinking stops rational thought and corrodes unfettered research. When faith rules we get the dark ages. Faith is the exact opposite of rational skeptical enquiry. While faith may once have staffed hospitals it is science that made them more than places to go and die.
-
239
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
by dark angle injust want to share this amazing debate!
caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.
as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.
-
-
Qcmbr
Ok - second one. Same format. I need to understand what eternal means for your god and why it is essential.
1 - Does your god change in any way shape or form under any circumstances?
2 - Does he or she have a gender? Is gender an eternal characteristic or a transitory one? If it has gender and is eternal is it matched by an eternal alternate gender being or is the alternate gender unable to sustain eternal composition?
3 - Is eternal a definition in respect to: time ( this being either is either outside of time or has experienced all time and so knows that it never ceases across all time points?), metaphor ( in relation to us your god is eternal since we only exist for a few years ), knowledge ( knowing everything one could argue that you can extrapolate everything that will ever be and ergo experience it without needing to be there ) or in works ( everything was caused or individually crafted by your god so as long as time exists then something done by your god will endure ) -?
4 - Is all life eternal or can life be forever eradicated?
5 - Would your god cease to be your god if it was indeed capable of ceasing? What would occur if your god ceased?
-
239
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
by dark angle injust want to share this amazing debate!
caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.
as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.
-
-
Qcmbr
Sometimes I hate having to sleep in the middle of a discussion. Anyhow.
Tec- remember how I said I suspected that the problem you would have is defining anything essential for your god? Remember I am only wishing to examine the god you posit ( so these questions / answers aren't related to Ganesh or the Catholic trinitarian god for example) - if you cannot answer something about your specific god it means you really shouldn't be defining your particular god by your lack of knowledge. Your answers are exactly what I meant.
May I ask how any of those questions are proofs against anything?
Even if I did not know the answer, would that be proof against God, or simply proof of my lack of knowledge?
1 - don't know
2 - as far as I understand - based on Him being the 'creator' of life
3 - life is the living... what is non-life?
4 - what is non-life?
5 - lol, how would I know?
Peace,
tammy
If you wish to define life as an essential characteristic you need to be able to specify why it is essential and what it's absence means for your god. It's only a proof if you show what it proves. I didn't even need to get to any science to show that life itself is not an essential characteristic of your god since if you can't define it or what it would look like if it wasn't there or wasn't created then you can't claim it as a differentiating factor. By your lack of definition life becomes an evidence for anything and nothing.