A Catholic Church-affiliated hospital used a surprising argument to defend itself in a lawsuit.
L4H: Do you acknowledge that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for their existence?
R: No, our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
This does not address how matter, energy and time came into existence – rather is addresses a possible ending.
@Reality : Think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever.
This violates the Thermodynamic Laws (i.e. a continous cycle engine is impossible). Namely, some energy is always lost via entropy. Thus, a endless recycling is impossible. Astophysists have considered this solution and deemed that the upper recycling limit is approximately 100 cycles before the Big Bounce would no longer bounce.
@Reality : Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the entropy problem
Exactly my point above.
@Reality : [brane cosmology model] was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt
I acknowledge that the search continues for a natural explanation, but I'm looking for one where all the evidence supports the theory, not one that lacks evidence.
Lie4Him, We could be in the first cycle. We don't know does not equate to a god did it.
@In Santa we trust : We could be in the first cycle. We don't know does not equate to a god did it.
If the cycles are not endless, then it implies that someone/something started it.
Or energy, mass and time are the real gods !!
IN ISLAM, LIFE BEGINS AT BANG.
I never would have thought you would post something worth replying to.
I was wrong. this is kind of funny.
Running this story again only gives added credence to the following:
Tis disturbing that CNN had no net or blog coverage of the Respect for Human Life in ALL its Forms march in Washington DC last Friday but is providing coverage for a small law case in Colorado. One wonders about what else the moderators of this blog and their bosses have neglected to cover. Could it be that these bosses are members of the Immoral Majority, the voting "mothers and fathers" of the 50 million aborted wo-mb babies sla-ughtered since 1973?
Here is one rec-ommendation for them to present in their d-aily reviews:
Eli-minating the need for a "Respect for Human Life in All Its Forms" march every Ja-nuary:
Co-ndoms are available over the counter for less than 50 cents each. Make the Pill (type dependent on doctor’s ev-aluation) available over the counter and there will be no more debate. Pla-nned Parenth-ood can offer deep discounts for those who say they cannot afford said protection.
Or better yet, put a pack of con-doms and a box of Pills in cereal boxes. Unfortunately, that would not ensure the condoms and/or Pills would be used. Based on Guttmacher Insti-tute data, said condoms and/or Pills are currently not being used as they should. (one million abortions/yr and 19 million cases of STDs/yr because either the daily Pill was not taken or a condom stayed in the pocket.)
Maybe selling Pill-enriched sodas??? Hmmm?
Condom-fitted briefs for men?? Hmmm?
The door is open for other ideas!!!
CNN did cover the march. And fundies march all the time, so it's hard to notice what they're all up in arms about next.
CNN did not cover the Life March via their net news or in this blog.
There are lots of marches and protests in Washingotn DC.
Not news worthy.
The largets church in the world once again showing it will abandon its morals for money – that is worth pointing out.
So it would need to be covered on this blog to get its full due? It was a non-story. Again, fundies marching happens every day. No one cares, especially when it's about something that was legalized 40 years ago.
For those who care:
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
I just can't believe people still go to the RCC for moral guidance. What do they have to do to show you idiots they only have morals when it is convenient? R.a.p.e. children?
Out of the billion+ members of the RCC, how many have ever ra p ed anyone? Or are you going to blame the vast majority for the wrongs of the tiny minority?
Solid point, but you would think people would lose faith that people of faith, people who are supposed to be moral guides in this world are committing some pretty horrible sins in gods own house, shouldn't that at least raise some flags for RCC believers? It's one thing for a small amount of random catholics to committ sins, catholics accept that men are flawed, but a) shouldn't god stop sin when it's happening in his house and b) even if holy men are still men who are flawed, shouldn't they be divinely aided by god?
I hope that didn't come off as snarky, they're just honest quesitons
It could be argued that the followers should not put their faith in man, even those who are suppose to be leading them morally, but to put their faith in God.
I fully support the notion of cleaning out an organization when their is problems and the members of the RCC should do just that. First starting off with their own local groups. But I don't think that the "offended" want that. They want the entire organization to crumble and burn away. Of course by "offended" I am meaning those that are not even members of the RCC or even have a faith period.
As for God and the RCC/church, what is a church for? God..or his followers? Does God require a church? Or does his followers. If there is a problem within the church, it is the members problem and if they want to honor their faith...they should clean house.
I didn't take it as snarky..your comments where valid.
I'm not talking about the billion sheep, i'm referring to the church shepards.
The ones who hid the fast children were being abused for at least 3 generations.
The ones who now are willing to change their vier of when life beging because it fills an immediate financial need.
@New Athiest- I think you have too much faith in how well organized the leadership of the RCC is. I doubt a Bishop in the midwest knew anything about what a priest in France was doing.
You are dealing with two separate issues that do not need to mingle. Those that have hurt children are not the same ones that are arguing over when life begins. Sure, there may be some...but probably not many.
Bringing up the ra p e problems in the RCC everytime the catholics might get involved with a social issue is unneeded and low. Sure, I feel that the RCC should have owned up to the problems and fixed them sooner and in a better manner. But to hold that over their heads for the next hundred years is pointless.
Life starts when it is convenient for us to have it start. This story is like a Shakespearian plot hacking the axe head at the difficulty with being human and how we rationalize every aspect of life. What is great here is the fact that no matter how the players come down on their want, no one side is the victim or the good guy. Both sides sell themselves out. A: Church supports hospital= sell out life starts at conception and agree with free choicers. B: Church goes against legal finding and supports mother= church will accept legal punishment for believeing as it does (rather repectable) yet the mother goes against life starting at birth. Mother accept legal finding and thus supports religious view that life starts in the womb. Is thwere any right or wrong answer here or do we simply look to see who is brave enough to place themselves on the sword of consistency? If only Shakespeare were alive today to write about this.
Religion and religion and religion
T'is a tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
@hawaiiguest : Just because something exists means absolutely nothing as to which explanation is likely. Every explanation stands and falls on its own merits and evidence.
Okay, lets make this plain. Just answer a yes or no to each of the questions below:
1) Do you acknowledge that Matter, Energy and Time exist?
2) Do you acknowledge that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for their existence?
If you answer yes to both, then a supernatural explanation is plausible.
Or not die4him.
Just because we don't have a ready explaination for why those things exist does not mean it is the result of some creator.
You have zero evidence to support your claim.
It is a hypothesis that has no evidence to support it.
The difference between us is that we have no issues saying "We don't know."
You believers just can't let go of your security blanket and have to have some imaginary creature, even though there has never been any schred of proof that it exists, using magic to answer the things you don't understand.
Face it lady, you bought into a big lie, and you are getting scammed by the religious scammers who prey on gullible people like you.
@niknak : Just because we don't have a ready explaination for why those things exist does not mean it is the result of some creator.
So, you acknowledge that God is the most plausible answer, but you just don't like the answer. Thanks for your honesty – unlike some.
Not necessarily. You're just poking around in theory, Gullible4Him.
@¿¿lol : Not necessarily. You're just poking around in theory
What's "not necessarily"? Science is a method for determining truth, designed to obviate internal biases. Since you don't like science, you must prefer apriori conclusions.
how is a supernatural explanation plausible – when there's never been any evidence of anything supernatural....ever?
you've got to be joking.
"So, you acknowledge that God is the most plausible answer,"
No, he simply acknowledges that that's *your* proffered explanation.
@Gullible4Him – no – I didn't comment on science, I commented on the conclusions you've drawn. Theory is theory. Assumptive leaps are ASSumptive leaps.
the problem with your questions is that you assume there was nothing, and suddenly everything was here (aka the big bang happened).
That is not the correct scientific explanation. I don't think all matter suddenly came into being with the big bang.
You must not read well die4him.
There is zero evidence that a god or a creator exists, therefore, a god or creator is NOT a plausible explaination for the cause of the universe/solar system/earth etc.
I know you won't ever let go of your sky fairy myth, you will do your whole fundie/repub "double down" thing and cling more fervently to the myth.
And I really don't care what you believe in.
What I care about is you fundies trying to put your stone age myth into our lives.
You want to howl at the moon, go ahead, just stot trying to make us go out and howl with you.
@New Athiest : the problem with your questions is that you assume there was nothing, and suddenly everything was here
Good point. However, isn't that exactly what the Big Bang proposes? When the singularity existed, matter, energy and time did not exist.
ok ok ok.... but seriously... how is a supernatural explanation plausible – when there's never been any evidence of anything supernatural....ever?
1) We can't even say for certain that matter and energy didn't exist at some point. We know that the current state of matter and energy began to exist with the Big Bang, but before that we don't know. But as far as we are aware, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2) No natural explanation doesn't automatically make "super thingy done it" plausible when there has been no demonstration that anything supernatural existing is even necessary, let alone likely.
@niknak : There is zero evidence that a god or a creator exists, therefore, a god or creator is NOT a plausible explaination for the cause of the universe/solar system/earth etc.
I understand you very well. You abhor the possible conclusion so you're rather not consider the issue.
which goes back to the little thing of calling theories what they are – theory.
@hawaiiguest : 1) We can't even say for certain that matter and energy didn't exist at some point. We know that the current state of matter and energy began to exist with the Big Bang, but before that we don't know.
Not quite correct. We know that the current state of "matter, energy AND time" began to exist with the Big Bang. Technically, there was nothing before the Big Bang (if you accept the theory). The mathematical models which predicts the singularity break down in the singularity.
@hawaiiguest : But as far as we are aware, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
That's part of the thermodynamic law, yes. However, you've left off the qualifier : there is no natural means to create or destroy matter or energy. The thermodynamic laws only apply to this universe.
@hawaiiguest : No natural explanation doesn't automatically make "super thingy done it" plausible when there has been no demonstration that anything supernatural existing is even necessary
First, we are limited to this spacetime, so the only possible evidence is within this same spacetime. The thermodynamic laws posit that its impossible to naturally create matter and energy, but that does not preclude a supernatural explanation. Since we know that MET exists, that it didn't exist in the singularity, and it is impossible to naturally create it, it indicates that a force outside of this spacetime created such.
" You abhor the possible conclusion so you're rather not consider the issue."
On the contrary... you know, sometimes I almost wish that your fantasy were true. Live a quite upstanding, loving, productive life, as I do now, and be rewarded with eternal bliss if I just say it's all for "Him" (I'd have to overlook an awful lot of monstrous behavior from Biblegod, however, eeeewwwww). Pretty slick! Pretty cool! Dream on...
1) Do you acknowledge that Matter, Energy and Time exist? – Yes
2) Do you acknowledge that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for their existence?- No, see below:
What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)
1. The Sun and its energy will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.
2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.
3. One wayward rock/comet and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.
4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.
5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.
6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe and time, energy and matter will end.
7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.
Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
Then there is this:
o Think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever. Human life and Earth are simply a minute part of this cha-otic, sto-cha-stic, expanding, shrinking process disappearing in five billion years with the burn out of the Sun and maybe returning in another five billion years with different life forms but still subject to the va-ga-ries of its local star.
o "In the 1930s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the entropy problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase. This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology. In 2011, a five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies and spanning 7 billion years of cosmic time confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds."
One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time. The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model."
A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."
I will accept the human notion of matter and energy but i believe we are still learning what they are. Still, we symbolically understand what we believe them to be. Time...I do have a problem with this one- is time something we move through or is it something that moves through us? Is time something that is linear as a analog recording or is it more like a digital recording disconnected frk that before it and after it? My problem is I do not know if our brains are capable of understanding the real world around us or if it restricts the real world in order for us to be able to tolerate it- function within it. Things like atomic particles exisitng in more than one place at the same time or being destroyed before they are created cause me to wonder if those findings are a shortcoming of our brain and ability to understand or demonstrations that perhaps time is not as we believe it to be. I know there are those who will point to Einstein and others and the theorems and math and so on...but i find it difficult to believe that our still developing brain that is retricted by rather simplistic senses such that we must build tools in order to see the actual world around us and with each discovery we find the world still smaller and larger than we are capable of seeing and yet we extrapolate our greatly limited knowledge and experience as if ignorance cannot possibly be ours. Place on top of the the human ego and I have to say, we have done a wonderful job of recording the world as we are able to observe it and understand it, but is that how it really is? I think there is more and however it came to be, I am in awe.
God is simply a word...whatever created this place we live and however it happened...no manipulation of letters or words can hope to expalin it. Symbols are wonderful things but they are terribly misleading and hollow.
No, the big bang did not start everything. – in my opinion.
There was matter before and there is no reason to think all matter everywhere was involved in that explosion.
You stated "Not quite correct. We know that the current state of "matter, energy AND time" began to exist with the Big Bang. Technically, there was nothing before the Big Bang (if you accept the theory). The mathematical models which predicts the singularity break down in the singularity.
Incorrect. It is more than likely that our big bang was not the first nor will it be the last. It is also likely that energy and time have always existed, but we are not sure, yet.
You clearly have not studied M theory, and given the "logic" that you have tried to pass off, you would not be able to comprehend its implications.
2) Do you acknowledge that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for their existence?
No. Just because YOU don't consider a certain theory plausible, does not make it false.
What Charlie said.
Answer as if you lived in 200 BCE:
1) Do you acknowledge that lightening exists?
2) Do you acknowledge that there is currently no naturalistic explanation for its existence?
If you answer yes to both, then the Thor explanation is plausible.
@Charlie : God is simply a word...whatever created this place we live and however it happened
I agree that we won't ever understand our universe completely, since we're limited by the senses we have. The term God (or lord) means "ruler" as in Ruler of All. And God didn't explain HOW He did it, but THAT He created it.
@lunchbreaker : Just because YOU don't consider a certain theory plausible, does not make it false
Again, my posit is that the God explanation is the most plausible, not the ONLY explanation. If it were the only explanation, then faith would not be required.
@ME II : If you answer yes to both, then the Thor explanation is plausible.
This is a non sequitor. All the evidence shows is that SOME unknown effect is causing it. You haven't shown any connection that is reasonable.
"And God didn't explain HOW He did it, but THAT He created it."
Except that we don't actually know that part. That's just an opinion.
You're only tying time into the conversation because time, as the arbitrary concept we use, is necessarily tied to the beginning of the big bang. You're doing this unneccessarily, and it's fairly dishonest. Concepts created by us are useless in this conversation, which is why I'm only dealing with matter and energy, which we know must have existed for the singularity to begin expanding. You're making a lot of strange and unjustified leaps here, and it doesn't really help your case at all.
"All the evidence shows is that SOME unknown effect is causing it. You haven't shown any connection that is reasonable."
My point exactly.
If only all atheists could be like that drunk hitchens, dead with their blasphemous throats rotted out of them and consigned to eternity in self imposed torment.
I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
Why don't you just tell the truth and admit you'r a brain damaged teenager who loves to troll the internet?
srsly – hands down... funniest story ever
I do admit the entertainmanet factor on religious hypocrisy stories is very high!
Life begins at birth*
*unless we are being sued for killing an unborn child.
NOTHING CAN TAKE FORM WITHOUT TRUTH AND TRUTH ABSOLUTE IS LORD AND GOD OF UNIVERSE, PROVE IT OTHER WISE, IF YOU CAN FIND ANY ONE STRONGER THAN TRUTH ABSOLUTE BY ANY MEANS. IF NOT, ACCEPT TRUTH ABSOLUTE AS YOUR AND LORD OF THE UNIVERSE. HINDUS, DENIERS OF TRUTH ABSOLUTE GOD.
GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT. TRUTH ABSOLUTE IS ALLAH WAS A PEDO.
I am on company time now.
Stealing time from your company...for shame...you're making jesus cry.
Maybe L4 works at Vatican Propaganda?!
BTW – Next time I'll be reporting your for abusing the Terms of Service.
Because that's a scary threat. I'll sic imaginary internet police on you.
I'll get God to ban an anonymous person from an open blog. I am that good.
@Akira : Your name is Mary. Shall I go on?
Please do. BTW – I'm not on any other forum and haven't been for many years.
Your name is Mary Hecht, you are 48, you work at Unity Health Systems, St. Mary's Campus in Rochester, you live in Webster, near Rochester NY.
You may certainly deny it all you wish to; I really don't care.
Oh, added bonus: you're little agapé friend is named Philip Douglas, or those who better know him here as "Douglas".
You also pretended to be a married, Italian woman who suffers from multiple Sclerosis when you used to post as "Chick-a-dee".
Now, I expect you to deny this; you did as Chick-a-dee when you started lying about your background there, too.
You denied it on This Just In when you were called out on using company time to post.
I detest dishonesty, especially when I know what the truth is.
Remember one thing: the 'Net is never truly anonymous, and pretending to be this caring Christian who "Lives4Him" when you lie constantly is doing the true Christians a massive disservice.
Proselytize all you want; this is a belief Blog, after all, but lying about who you are and your education is such a dishonest way to get your message across.
Wow Akira, I guess die4him and you have crossed pathes in the past.
And she left a bad taste in your cyber mouth.
But are you surprised a god fearing xtian who claims to follow jeebus actually would lie about something in their past?
I have found that when one scratches just below the surface of a fundie, one will find some really creepy stuff.
"But are you surprised a god fearing xtian who claims to follow jeebus actually would lie about something in their past?"
No...which just makes the hypocrisy more difficult to take. I detest hypocrites, also.
"I have found that when one scratches just below the surface of a fundie, one will find some really creepy stuff."
You have no idea how true this statement is! Creepy is an apt description.
@Akira : Your name is Mary Hecht, you are 48, you work at Unity Health Systems, St. Mary's Campus in Rochester, you live in Webster, near Rochester NY.
Do you live around Charlotte, NC? If so, lets meet. I'll show you my wedding band – and the impact of wearing such band for more than 10 years (so you won't claim it isn't mine). Then, you can apologize on the forum. :)
@lunchbreaker : If you define "nothing" as the absence of space, time and matter, then you define your God as nothing.
Not necessarily. When a child is in kindergarten, it would be impossible for him/her to accurately describe what life is like outside of school. Yet, "higher beings" (i.e. adults) created that school. God created a school house with the dimensions of matter, energy and time and placed us in that school to learn. So, we are learning to live outside of our current dimensions.
That was the fallacy of False Analogy. People building schoolhouses does not in any way support or prove the imaginary and totally unevidenced assertion that god even exists, much lesss created anything.
@Sure : That was the fallacy of False Analogy.
Why? Do you deny we have trials and tributlations on this earth? Do schools NOT have trials and tributlations? Does the Bible NOT say that we will have trials and tributlations?
In short, why do you claim the analoby is weak?
You cannot produce even the slightest evidence of what you claim. Simple as that.
Lie4Him. You have no proof. The universe exists – that does not mean that a god did it and even if a god did it you have no proof that it was your god or that your worship of it would meet its approval. If you think a god can be eternal and not need a creator why can't you envisage a universe that is eternal and does not need a creator?
Prove that die4him?
God created nothing as god does not exist.
If you read my entire post, you would have seen that my next statement was that you most likely do not consider God nothing.
"Ummm... Matter, energy and time DOES exist and since there is a lack of naturalistic explanation, this implies that a supernatural explanation is the most likely explanation."
Lack of explanation (i.e. understanding) does not imply supernatural. Throughout history there are many things that were once lacking in wordly explanation that have since been thoroughly explained. Your argument is ridiculous, and if that's how you choose to define "god" – (based on things we don't understand yet) then your god is nothing more than an ever-shrinking unknown.
@Thoth : Lack of explanation (i.e. understanding) does not imply supernatural
This argument has taken on the logic fallacy of ad nausium. You keep claiming this, while ignoring the evidence.
@Live – LOL – I realize you want people to think you are smart by using word phrases that you clearly don't grasp, but for the sake of humor; what evidence? Oh right "matter, energy and time".....ok, so those exist (well actually time was created by man as a metric but we want go down that worm hole). The fact that these things, or anything exists is merely evidence for it's existence, not for some diety with characteristics applied by man.
@Thoth : I realize you want people to think you are smart by using word phrases
I prefer people think that I'm uneducated. It makes my task eaiser. If I appear to have the more logical answer, people will be more likely to consider Christ as their answer. On the other hand, if my challenger has the better answer, then they lean against that decision. When my opponent thinks I'm uneducated, they don't bother to think about what they post, making them appear to be foolish.
""Ummm... THIS is how science works – by look at the evidence and reaching the most likely conclusion.""
The evidence does not lead to the conclusion you claim. There is no evidence of a being that exists outside of space and time nor is there eveidence such a being interacts in this existence.
People walking on water, the dead rising from graves, living in whales for three days...the list is LONG.
"Not all prophesies are meant to be fulfilled at the same time. Some were prior to Christ to legimatize a messenger of God to the people, while others were at the first coming of Christ, and still others will be at his return."
There are prophacies that never came true and now are impossible to come true, regardless of you mental gymnastics to create loopholes.
"No, the scientific process. Once you falsify a posit, it is dropped from consideration."
And your god can be falsified.
@Blessed are the Cheesemakers : There is no evidence of a being that exists outside of space and time
Great example of the logic fallacy called : Suppressed Evidence
@Blessed are the Cheesemakers : People walking on water, the dead rising from graves, living in whales for three days...the list is LONG.
Great example of the logic fallacy called : Argument from Ignorance
Just because it doesn't happen today does not mean that it hasn't happened in the past.
Here's a fun prophecy on which Christianity depends and yet was not fulfilled.
The Messiah must come from David's line, according to the Old Testament.
But if one is to believe in the Virgin Birth, that means that Joseph was Christ's ADOPTIVE father and a tribal line cannot be passed on through adoption, nor does it pass through the mother (nor was Mary descended from David through Solomon).
Therefore, Mary's child was not descended from the Davidic line unless Joseph was the biological father, in which case the Vir/gin Mary wasn't exactly a vir/gin.
@Doc Vestibule : nor does it pass through the mother (nor was Mary descended from David through Solomon).
If you study properly, you will find that the book of Matthew records the kingship line (i.e. from father to son), while Luke records the maternal line. This is why they are different. Both have passed down from Solomon.
How does one study fiction properly?
@Doc Vestibule : "Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:19
You obviously don't know that there are only 12 chapters in Ecclesiastes.
He's obviously using the King James Bible, you ignorant dingbat!
Is there any Christian who actually knows his own religion?
hinduism absurdity of a hindu, ignorant, sin. denial of truth absolute. begins not with a woman, but with hinduism lust of a man in following of hindu Lucifer, filthy secular as his god to defy truth absolute GOD.
KING JAMES, THE HIND LOVER PREACHER BY FAITH.
Not "Ecclesiastes" – I am quoting "Ecclesiasticus" from the King James Bible.
But please, let me know which Bible is the REAL one.
Is it the American Standard Version, American King James Version, Amplified Bible, An American Translation, ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament), An American Translation, Berkeley Version, Bible in English, The Bible in Living English, Bishops' Bible, Catholic Public Domain Version, Children's King James Version, Christian Community Bible, English version, Clear Word Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Contemporary English Version, Concordant Literal Version, A Conservative Version, Coverdale Bible, Darby Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision), EasyEnglish Bible, Easy-to-Read Version, English Jubilee 2000 Bible, English Standard Version, Ferrar Fenton Bible, Geneva Bible, God's Word, Good News Bible, Great Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Inclusive Bible, International Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament), Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament), ia E. Smith Parker Translation, King James 2000 Version, King James Easy Reading Version, King James Version, King James II Version, Knox's Translation of the Vulgate, Lamsa Bible, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament), The Living Bible, The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament), Matthew's Bible, The Message, Modern King James Version, Modern Language Bible, Moffatt, New Translation, James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshi.tta, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New English Bible, New English Translation (NET Bible), New International Reader's Version, New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament), New King James Version, New Life Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Quaker Bible, Recovery Version of the Bible, Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised English Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, The Scriptures, Simplified English Bible, The Story Bible, Taverner's Bible, Thomson's Translation, Today's New International Version, Third Millennium Bible, Tyndale Bible, Updated King James Version, A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures, Webster's Revision, Westminster Bible, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible, Wycliffe's Bible (1380), Wycliffe's Bible (1388), Young's Literal Translation?
Maybe one of the other hundreds of editions?
Perhaps to save time, you should just let me know which version YOU use.
@Atheists: teaching Christians about their Bible : He's obviously using the King James Bible, you ignorant dingbat!
Really? It's not in there either. In fact, the Massoretic text was used for both the KJV, NASB and NIV. Where they differ is the New Testament. This difference is due to the sources available at the time of eachs publication. When the KJV was published, the Protestant church was in a row with the Catholic Church – who would not let them have any original manuscripts. So, they used a Medieval text – but is was a text that was corrupted from the original manuscripts.
@Doc Vestibule – Not "Ecclesiastes" – I am quoting "Ecclesiasticus" from the King James Bible.
My mistake. Well, I only defend the Bible or my own statements, so I'll ignore this issue since it isn't relevant.
@Doc Vestibule – But please, let me know which Bible is the REAL one.
The original language is always the gold standard, but the others can be used if one isn't fluent in the original languages.(like me).
Different tranlations give different meanings – sometimes it can be extremely important distinctions.
In the original Greek, the terms used in Corinthian's list of vices that are sometimes translated as "hom-ose.xual" are 'malakoi' and 'ar.senkoitai'.
AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals". After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodo.mites" in subsequent editions.
'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
MALAKOI – Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "ef.feminate" (KJV), "hom.ose.xuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "per.verts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prosti.tutes" (NCV), and "male prost.itutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators." Only in the 20th century has it been understood as a reference to hom.ose.xuality.
@Doc Vestibule : Different tranlations give different meanings – sometimes it can be extremely important distinctions.
Granted, but what's your point. I do understand the Greek, but don't claim to be fluent. And again, I only defend the Bible and my own statements, so I won't be defending who knew what and when.
Terrible hypocrisy on the part of St. Thomas.
I agree with you on this one.
PROTECT THE ONE WHO CAN NOT PROTECT THEMSELVES, ONCE EVERY ONE OF US WAS HELPLESS SPERM, AND GIVE HINDUS KILLERS OF HELPLESS, WHAT IS COMMANDED, FOR HINDUS, KILLERS, SAME.
Sperm is living being and growth of sperm, a living being begins with inception, PROVEN BY QUANTUM PHYSICS, and denied by hindus murderers to justify hinduism, murder of helpless to please their hindu soul, filthy desire by hindu Judaism, filthy self center ism, secular ism, in defiance of truth absolute GOD, foundation of American consti tution.
By quantum physics, everything is dependent on dark matter or program, otherwise known as Spirit, truth of human to be in physical form. Spirit, programs appear in male body after reaching age of puberty by will of Allah, certain matter from blood of man is attracted to spirit on 125 volts. produced by function of human body, after attachment of matter to spirit, matter takes form of sperm, a living being, transferred to woman's body to grow into human form according to spirit, program, otherwise known as seeded, not physically but spiritually, programmed.
Woman has no other function in human life but to mother a child, a greatest service, man cannot do without, reason for a children to carry their fathers name. Heritage of person is physically attached to man's linage, not woman.
PROTECT THE TERRORISTS WHO CAN NOT PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM AMERICAN DRONES.
@hawaiiguest : Are you still using those fallacious points? Your entire post starts with an argument from ignorance.
You still don't understand the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam issue, do you. Let me quote it again.
If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
I've pointed out postive evidence (i.e. the existence of matter, energy and time), so you have no justification for ignoring this evidence.
Addendum: A valid example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is the following argument.
"There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore He exists"
However, I'm not using this argument.
Wow that's some major fail.
1) You state in your first "point" that the lack of naturalistic explanation means that a supernatural one is necessary. This is textbook argument from ignorance.
2) "I've pointed out postive evidence (i.e. the existence of matter, energy and time), so you have no justification for ignoring this evidence."
This is just stating that things exist, which in no way whatsoever points to "god done it".
3) In terms of the god of the bible, the logically incompatible nature of the characteristics presented is evidence against it's existence.
You have no positive evidence whatsoever.
The fact that something exists is not positive evidence of how it came to be.
"I've pointed out postive evidence (i.e. the existence of matter, energy and time), so you have no justification for ignoring this evidence." You do see how silly you sound don't you?
All rise, Judge Live4Him presiding...
Prosecutor "I will show that that man killed our victim in a brutal and violent manner. One need but look and see these photos of the crime to see that it was indeed violent and brutal."
Defense "But the prosecution has no evidence linking my client to this crime in any way shape or form!"
Prosecutor "The evidence that a crime was commited is enough to convict this criminal!!"
Defense "Objection!! Unsubstantiated!!"
Judge Live4Him "I'll allow it..."
What's interesting is that the first animals capable of logic near imeadietly started forming religions to get close to God.
If you define "nothing" as the absence of space, time and matter, then you define your God as nothing. Just the same as you would not consider God nothing, the big bang did not have to come from "nothing", but something that is not made of space time or matter. You call it God, I'm still searching. I'm not claiming you are wrong, L4H, infact we both agree the universe did not come from nothing.
"What's interesting is that the first animals capable of logic near imeadietly started forming religions to get close to God."
People are sometimes sort of insulted by the fact that humans are social mammals. They seek a leader (of the pack, if you will), who has qualities of wisdom, benevolence, and the power to protect them from harm. They range from leader of the tribe, to leader of the nation, or some other group unit. Sometimes these human leaders were considered gods. Since humans are aware that their lives will end, and they are not at all thrilled by this fact, they then seek an imaginary leader who will provide the same wisdom, benevolence and protection in a much hoped-for afterlife. It is not surprising that they envision this leader with human-like characteristics of love, anger, wisdom, benevolence, etc. Also, much of nature was a mystery to them and this fantasy filled the huge gaps in their knowledge.
The supersti'tions dreamed up over the eons regarding what these gods liked, hated, rewarded, punished, etc. fill many books. The shamans, whether they believed the supersti'tions or not, found a great mechanism for power and control of the populace.
Very lame. The Argument From Ignorance is the religioous position. We are rejecting your claim. The burden of proof is on religious people: you made a claim, the claim is challenged.
It is dishonest and ridiculous to attempt to make people prove the non-existence of something which does not exist. Proving a negative is impossible.
The total lack of evidence supporting the existence of something is VERY VERY STRONG evidence that the thing in question does not exist.
You have been told this repeatedly, and yet you keep returning to your sleazy dishonest sophistry. Why are religious people so intellectually dishonest?
@hawaiiguest : You state in your first "point" that the lack of naturalistic explanation means that a supernatural one is necessary.
I assumed that I didn't need to point out the existence of matter, energy and time. I guess I'm wrong again.
Ummm... Matter, energy and time DOES exist and since there is a lack of naturalistic explanation, this implies that a supernatural explanation is the most likely explanation.
@hawaiiguest : This is just stating that things exist, which in no way whatsoever points to "god done it".
Of course! That's why there are MULTIPLE premises.
@hawaiiguest : the logically incompatible nature of the characteristics presented is evidence against it's existence.
Your name is Mary. Shall I go on?
As it happens, I do know where you work, how old you are, etc...but you're right: it has nothing to do with the conversation.
It helps to know people from other blogs, that and having helpful friends all over the country...
You Say "Matter, energy and time DOES exist and since there is a lack of naturalistic explanation, this implies that a supernatural explanation is the most likely explanation"
It is that conclusion that is ridiculous.
Why is your wild-a$$ a$$umption the most likely? I can give you hundreds of POSSIBLE explainations, but you jump to YOUR expalination as the most likely....Do me a favor...show your work .
@The Truth : Defense "But the prosecution has no evidence linking my client to this crime in any way shape or form!"
You're right, the first premise doesn't link the two (which I point out). It is the final premise that links the existence of MET and the Biblical God.
You are stupid. The existence of time, matter and energy do not imply any supernatural force in any way. Not at all. You are committing a fallacy called non sequitur.
They all act strictly according to natural laws, and there is nothing supernatural hinted about them at all. Just because we limited humans cannot know the origin or sequences of origins now, that means nothing regarding gods, just as an inability to explain earthquakes and lightning by earlier man did not make gods true either.
Man you are a noncompoop!
"You're right, the first premise doesn't link the two (which I point out). It is the final premise that links the existence of MET and the Biblical God."
So matter, energy & time can only = the Hebrew God of the bible? That is an astounding conclusion. It's not true by any sense but it is astounding. You prove over and over again that you have little to no logic and reasoning skills. The old religious side of me wants to say "Thats because you are one of the weaker vessles that all women are and do not have as fine a grasp on logic as men do." But my atheist side says all humans are equal and it's likely just a matter of education that keeps you from "getting" it.
Also, your conclusion that the bible offers the only creation story which includes matter, energy and time is not only false but obviously so and only a peer trying to decieve you would tell you otherwise. You might want to try reading your own bible instead of just listening to it each year. And after that try reading other books that claim divine origin, it's very enlightening, not in the "will make you religious" sense, but will open your eyes to the fact that every culture has made similar assumptions about human origins and the bible is nothing special.
"I assumed that I didn't need to point out the existence of matter, energy and time. I guess I'm wrong again.
Ummm... Matter, energy and time DOES exist and since there is a lack of naturalistic explanation, this implies that a supernatural explanation is the most likely explanation"
Umm....no, no, and no again. Just because something exists means absolutely nothing as to which explanation is likely. Every explanation stands and falls on its own merits and evidence.
"Of course! That's why there are MULTIPLE premises"
Wow. Do you not realize that if your original premise is not valid, then the entire argument completely falls apart? Your first premise is not accepted, and without actually demonstrating your premise as true, the rest of the premises are equally invalid. Not to mention they each have problems.
All-loving, but will send you to eternal torment for things like:
Not loving him
Not believing in him
Not kowtowing and worshipping him good enough
Has an incredibly important message for all mankind, spreads it through the worst way possible.
Makes faith necessary, makes some people more logically inclined than others.
Hates gay people, makes gay people.
It's all patently absurd.
Your name is Mary. Shall I go on?
As it happens, I do know where you work, how old you are, etc...but you're right: it has nothing to do with the conversation.
It helps to know people from other blogs, that and having helpful friends all over the country..."
As much as we might like to think that you are onto something here, hunches and hearsay are not proof (as in everything other matter).
(hint: there are a quite a few zealots around who sound like this one)
That's a lot of assumptions Get Real. There no way to be certain of the inspirations or motivations for early religions. It could have been aliens freeing us from the Neanderthal empire.
I just think that the fact we freely conceive of gods/dieties where as every other social mammal does not makes its solitary apprance with our species interesting. Most stories don't last for hundreds of generations. Almost everything else in our societies trends into an out of favor, whether that be governments, art, kings, philosophies, borders, ect. Other ideas die, the religions themselves will die, and yet the belief in God will continue. Seems like we're predisposed to seeking God.
See my above post.
No hunch. Just fact.
@Akira : Just fact.
If you live in the Charlotte, NC area, lets meet. Lets dispel your so-called facts. If so, reply on the current page.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.