What a nice and cosy thread....time for some reality:
All scientific evidence shows that God is imaginary. So does all historical evidence. This leads any rational person to conclude that Christian beliefs are pure mythology. Christianity is just like every other mythology that mankind has dreamed up through the ages.
All scientific evidence shows that God is imaginary. So does all historical evidence. This leads any rational person to conclude that Christian beliefs are pure mythology. Christianity is just like every other mythology that mankind has dreamed up through the ages. Amen.
It just is in synchronous rotation about the earth. In fact, most major moons in the solar system have synchronous rotation due to tidal locking over time.
In astronomy, synchronous rotation is a planetological term describing a body orbiting another, where the orbiting body takes as long to rotate on its axis as it does to make one orbit.....and therefore always keeps the same hemisphere pointed at the body it is orbiting!
This leads us to the "argumentum ad ignorantiam", also known as argument from ignorance or argument by lack of imagination, which is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.
"Proof" means deduction from presumed assumptions and factual results, or induction from statistical results on specific cases. HOW can you do this on the basis of a myth ? Technically everyone is an agnostic, anything beyond that is just an opinion. YOU are making the claim there is a god, so the burden of (impossible) proof is yours.
Experience is the most direct route to knowing reality, and if reality is the truth, then experience gives us truth while reason becomes the process of interpreting, calculating, and devising applications from what area of the truth has been experienced. Further, if one understands experience as one thing, and reason as another, then one must accept that each realm has its own methods of validation.
It is a wise saying: "Follow those who earnestly seek truth and retreat from those who claim they have it all"…..like all those religious preachers.
I like Ayn Rand very much, as a champion of rationality she also had a strong opposition to mysticism and religion, which she believed helped foster a crippling culture acting against individual human happiness and success.
Hi Aries, I love it...our famous god debate again...
I guess you are all familiar with "Occam's razor" ?
It was based on "William of Occam" and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation !
It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world, like "scientism" surely is.
So god really is just a myth.....and maybe some kind of a psychological calmative for those who need it. Just remember how that "god" came to us in the very old days: there was thunder and lightning and nobody knew what it meant and the humble answer was "god"! With analytical intelligence and information god just disappears.
In my view a moral is a message conveyed or a lesson learned from a story or an event.
Morality though, from a normative and universal sense, refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people under specified conditions. Nevertheless you may deny "morality" which then represents a position known as "moral scepticism".
Using common sense and following local laws will get you close to a very high moral standard….unless you live in a gunmen's country.
C'mon, Billy Meier’s story has been proven to be a hoax already 20 years ago. And those modern Disclosureproject- and MUFON-folks may be scientists by education but have changed to a totally different kind of profession:
They are now a vivid part of the lunatic fringe conspiracy business, actively selling publications, seminars, clothing, videos, CDs, DVDs, cups, pins and ask for donations in many handy links on their websites.
All they are doing is just following a profitable business model, based on all their compliant believers. As you can see this kind of business is growing fast, many websites have similar stories to offer and actively aid one another.
Not at all any apparent scientific work visible.
You believe in human reports of strange things ? What we need here is hard actual physical evidence that cannot be refuted. Until we obtain such evidence, I view these as a social and psychological phenomenon, or as a yet unexplained natural phenomenon. The human eye can easily trick the mind, magicians do it all the time. And just guess what bored brains are capable of constructing in the dark arcting winter….
Even when it comes to radar contacts they occasionally track objects whose transponders or IFF systems are not squawking properly and appear to be moving faster than anything we could engineer. These observations represent in actuality an electronic systems fault or atmospheric conditions that were eventually found to be responsible.
I have to add that any good radar operator knows the limits and range of his radar signal and speed calculations can be derived by timing the object and by using simple math from the ranging data. What I’m trying to say is that the public should be aware of the fact that radar signatures cannot be taken as irrefutable evidence. These systems can be fooled quite easily.
"Life" is just a chemical response to energy, not an independent event. And after life starts there are a series of environmental response stages in case it survives. As long as it reproduces it is "alive".
I already thought you guys are on the track to solve the mysteries of "black energy" and/or "black matter"....that would be some real good news.
Bye now....have to continue with the reproduction task as long as I remember how...Cape Town is getting you going in December !
In this case we can even observe the facts and find our theories confirmed !
"luck" refers to the enormous number of conditions that need to be fullfilled in order to develop life as we know it so far. Yet there may be other ways.....beside that famous "god"
Even if there are still further details to discover you just ask an astrophysicist and she or he will enlighten you on the mechanics of "the building of our solar system".
Stars form in regions of dense nebulae, consisting of gas and dust. Darker clouds are regions of thicker dust and gas, which can shrink and form small groupings of stars. For its first 50 to 100 million years, the sun and solar system were probably embedded in a region that looked like this.
In the original solar system, the sun was surrounded by a disk-shaped cloud of dust and gas after it formed, 4.55 billion years ago. In this cloud, or "solar nebula", innumerable particles of dust condensed out of the gas and orbited the sun in nearly circular orbits. Adjacent particles underwent collisions at relatively low speed, in the same way that high speed race cars moving around a circular track might nudge into each other. This will ultimatively lead to planets to form.
The rest is time and evolution....and with lots of luck there will be life.
Fact is that we actually can observe these developments happening in other parts of our universe. The only thing we have not seen so far is the development of live elsewhere.
Alrighty, I guess you are familiar with "Occam's razor" ?
It was based on "William of Occam" and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world, like "scientism" surely is.
Maria sweetie, whichever preaching path you strive for, don't think for one moment I havn't been there. I'm just way ahead of you and already returned from this dead-end road !
C'mon Gnomus Maximus, just read (and comprehend !) this THREAD.
Go back to pages 10 and 11 (already forgot about ?) and see what is written in your bible:
Just a small sample on the “seeing of God”:
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
And there are many examples like this. That’s almost typical for Christianity.
They don’t really know when (not the day, not the month and not even the year) their Jesus was born but found it practical to link it up with the famous Roman date of “Deus Sol Invictus” which also fitted nicely with a similar “Holy Day” of the other pagans of that time.
Makes it easier to switch, ehh ?
Based on such a “solid ground” you do not even need to discuss the other key statements like virgin birth, angels, paradise, god, reincarnation etc. pp.
The words of the famous bible on the power of God:
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
The words of the famous bible on dealing with personal injury:
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
Now, how to make up a belief from these "wise words" ??
One of the most persistent issues concerning any belief in God is the problem of evil.
The Greek Epicurus's argument back from 300 BC (!!) still holds up:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Interesting comment, you clearly "looked behind the scene" !
Whenever I'm in Zürich the next time we should exchange some ideas over dinner, be my guest. Which you prefer: Sonnenberg, Dolder, Baur au Lac or Taggenberg in Winterthur ?
>>I also find Christianity to be morally repugnant. The concepts of original sin, depravity, substitutionary forgiveness, intolerance, eternal punishment, and humble worship are all beneath the dignity of intelligent human beings and conflict with the values of kindness and reason. They are barbaric ideas for primitive cultures cowering in fear and ignorance.<<
Perfect quote ! For the logical thinker Christianity equals IMMORALITY.
For the strong believer it becomes a dope. And even they are not able to obey the basic rules of their own religion, like the 10 commandments.
charlos Forum Posts (243)
RE: God exists???
What a nice and cosy thread....time for some reality:All scientific evidence shows that God is imaginary. So does all historical evidence. This leads any rational person to conclude that Christian beliefs are pure mythology. Christianity is just like every other mythology that mankind has dreamed up through the ages.