Life's lucky 'kick start'

BBC News ^ | October 13, 2003 | Dr David Whitehouse

[Right Wing Professor]

I was only responding to the words you wrote.

The words were not directed at you in particular.

[whattajoke]

I see no reason whatsoever why any deity would keep itself concealed for some enigmatic purpose. At such time when a deity makes its presence known, then I will of course have no need to look for gods since their existence will become quite self-evident.

Might I add that if our hypothetical deity is omnipotent then it has clearly chosen to arrange reality in such a manner that I will not believe in it, and so I am merely following in the god's plan.

I've been trying to say this for years, however, I've never been able to make it as succint and clear as this. I'll be stealing this one, I don't care what you say. ; )

[whattajoke]

I see no reason whatsoever why any deity would keep itself concealed for some enigmatic purpose. At such time when a deity makes its presence known, then I will of course have no need to look for gods since their existence will become quite self-evident.

Might I add that if our hypothetical deity is omnipotent then it has clearly chosen to arrange reality in such a manner that I will not believe in it, and so I am merely following in the god's plan.

I've been trying to say this for years, however, I've never been able to make it as succint and clear as this. I'll be stealing this one, I don't care what you say. ; )

[whattajoke]

how the hell did that post 3x? sorry.

[Ogmios]

And my statement is not a strawman, you take on faith that what you believe is true, you have no evidence that the bible is correct in any form.

Science on the other hand, looks at the evidence it has and builds a hypothesis from it, there will necassarily be we believe, or this might have, or this probably, etc, etc, because science will never claim inerrancy.

I found the whole article fascinating to read, and the could haves and might haves will get other scientists working on it as well and either build upon the hypothesis or destroy it.

This is the way science works, yeah, it makes the "Why" people absolutely nuts, because science to you is guessing the how's with insufficient evidence, but that is why it is called a hypothesis.

The "why" and "how" of us in this crowd find the hypothesis fascinating, and wish to discuss it, you wish to blow it off as wishful thinking, which tells me that you have no idea what science really does.

You are a "why" person, whereas we are the How and why people. I find your statements amusing, nothing more.

[pgyanke]

This is a dissembling obfuscation. One could just as easily state that the Testaments are FICTION written around historical events.

Go away, Junior. The Iliad and Odyssey were fiction when they were written and were considered fiction by their intended audience. The Testaments were written as fact and accepted as fact by their audience. Those who haven't been able to disprove the scriptures (and let me tell you, MANY have tried) have invariably failed or hung their hat on irrelevancies. Your continued attempt to spin your way out of your erroneous comparison compounds the observation of your ignorance.

As to the rest of your post... I disagree with 999.9% of what you said. In case you don't understand, that means I disagree with what you said and another 10 things you didn't say.

Both previous examples - the Homeric poems and the Hebrew testaments - merely fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Because you say so. Well, I'm convinced now. You've certainly proven your scholarship to make such an assertion!

[AntiGuv]

Go away, Junior. The Iliad and Odyssey were fiction when they were written and were considered fiction by their intended audience. The Testaments were written as fact and accepted as fact by their audience.

Whether or not either were intended as fact or as fiction does not alter the analogy in the slightest. A psychotic in the mental ward could scribble out an account he believes to be true, but that makes it no more true for his belief.

Clearly, however, I was wrong to provide options above. You are not either dimwitted or dissembling. You are clearly a dimwit. To be honest, I suspected as much when I wrote that but wanted to be kind.. Like I implied, there is no point in debating with the faith of dimwits and I am content to leave any interested observers to draw whatever assessment they see fit.

Have a nice day.

[Old Professer]

Actually, I was commenting on the romantic notion of infallibility implicit in the author's comment: that if only evolution had more time, it would produce more perfect beings of a higher order than modern man.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Why? Why would a divine being want to conceal clear evidence of his own existence?

He hasn't. Look around, it's everywhere. I stated that God can't be proven, not that there was no evidence of God. As a Professor I would have thought you understand the difference between proof and evidence.

Why, having created an intelligent being, would you want you own existence not to be subject to that being's intelligent inquiry?

God's existence is not subject to our intelligent inquiry, although I believe actual intelligent inquiry into his word will show us that God does exist. Our belief subjects us to God. If one doesn't believe in God, this in no way affects God's existence or non-existence, only our response to the conclusion we've reached. If God's existence were dependent on our intelligent inquiry, then we would in fact be God, as we would have the power to create or destroy God himself.

[Ogmios]

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if evolution actually had a goal?

But since the only goal is survival, having a couple of extra billion years does not necassarily mean that we would be more advanced intellectually.

The chances are that it might be, I mean, we have only been around as civiliazations for the last 5-10,000 years, can you imagine what we would have accomlpished with 2 billion years under our belt, maybe a level 3 or level 2 civilization, maybe even level 1. We of course would prbably be unrecognizable as the human beings we are now, but we might have advanced far.

It's fun to think about anyway, no matter how unlikely it would have been.

[Right Wing Professor]

Actually, I was commenting on the romantic notion of infallibility implicit in the author's comment: that if only evolution had more time, it would produce more perfect beings of a higher order than modern man.

I think that's more a reflection of the nationality of the researchers than the science. Germans embraced Romanticism more than any other people, and have never really let go of it. One can almost hear the voice of Dr. Strangelove saying "by now ze Urth could have deffelopt var more atfanst intellishent critschures..."

[Ogmios]

Well, in the old days they said that as long as a God had believers, he or she existed, but when the last of the believers dies out, then the God or Goddess died with that last believer.

So, as long as there are believers, there will be a God, but when there are no more believers, then God will die.

So perhaps God needs us to exist, but we do not need a particular God to exist?

Just playing with philosophy, nothing serious.

[asformeandformyhouse]

So perhaps God needs us to exist, but we do not need a particular God to exist?

For the little 'g' gods that man has created, I would have to agree. But I'm talking about the big "G" God. If he exists, it's by his own power and not our influence.

[Right Wing Professor]

Look around, it's everywhere.

Can you be a little more specific?

As a Professor I would have thought you understand the difference between proof and evidence.

As a professor, I'm far too well aware that people often try to conceal their ignorance with condescension.

God's existence is not subject to our intelligent inquiry, although I believe actual intelligent inquiry into his word will show us that God does exist.

This is statement is self-contradictory.

If God's existence were dependent on our intelligent inquiry, then we would in fact be God, as we would have the power to create or destroy God himself.

We can inquire as to the existence of black holes; if we decide they don't exist, that does not annihilate every black hole in the universe. It just means we were rational but wrong.

[Ogmios]

OK, let's have a little fun, how do you know that the Big G God is not a creation of man, just as the Little g gods were?

Mythras, matches up pretty closely with the Christian God, is Mythras therefore a manmade God, or is he actually the Christian God in an earlier form, and if it is an earlier form, could you not say that we actually create God in our own image, not vice versa? Therefore the big G God is actually a man created God?

Therefore any God that is written about by man, would therefore be a man created God. So every God, whether they have a little g or a BIG G are actually created by man.

It could be argued....

[<1/1,000,000th%]

And many pro-abort Democrats are Catholic... what's your point?

If they fill in the gaps with their beliefs and they're Christians...

[Ogmios]

Have you ever read LLoyd Pye? "His book everything you know is wrong."

Absolutely spellbinding, and totally ludicrous, he makes fun of science, then takes evidence that he has found and tries to fit it into a puzzle that never quite gets there.

Fascinating stuff, hilarious stuff, but fascinating.

[Ogmios]

Yes, I am changing the subject... somewhat... LOL

[Right Wing Professor]

No, but I'll look for it.

[Ogmios]

Oh, you have to read it, it's a great romp into todays luny science. It's downright scary how he comes to some of his conclusions.

The pseudoscience is pretty spectacular, and the leaps in logic are incredible.