Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Audie: Just fyi, when you start yelling with ALL CAPS, I stop reading.

Dear Audie, the caps are merely for emphasis - sorry that mere type on a page is so distracting for you. I could just bold them. However, I don't communicate purely as I do just for any one person. Sorry. You might try concentrating upon the content of what I typed, instead whether they are lower or upper case. I suppose if I saw certain Chinese characters, I might be put off as well.

Audie: And I am not into binary thinking You are. East is East, West is West, and I dont think the twain are going to meet.

This is a meaningless comment as to the necessary parameters of a first cause - unless, what you actually mean is some kind of ancient Asian mysticism - see, metaphysics - transcends the hard parameters of what I asserted - which they most certainly do NOT! If you do not believe in a first cause or causes, then, of course, you are once again at the door of metaphysics and something non-physical of great intelligence and power than could self-exist / is eternal. But, again, this is not belief in science. Also, how things truly work, how they came into reality, has not one thing to do with how any culture - East or West - thinks about it. How one thinks about these things won't change the necessary parameters of what actually happened! And, last time I checked, the physics and science parameters necessary for all things don't change from one culture's science books to another. Neither do the brains of any person, per their genetics. Not to mention the truth stands outside of the method of interpretation - meaning, the truth of things is what actually occurs or is, not what or how you think about them. This is mere smoke and mirrors - a way of simply asserting the answers are all in unprovable, unknowable mysticism - of which logic has not one thing to do with. Thing is, mysticism, metaphysics, New Age mumbo jumbo - they are present in all cultures, of which each has influenced the other, into some mystical soup that give no knowledge except an assertion of "pop metaphysics." But if you believe in such, just don't talk or assert they have anything at all to do with scientific analysis or knowledge. It's merely faith in metaphysics that you know absolutely nothing about, but must have faith to entertain the possibility of.

Audie: The Essential One did a good job of expressing what is wrong with your
presentation. Does it need more, from me? I expressed it as cats discussing the origin of catfood.

Audie: I laugh at the "cats" who think that thro' philosophy they can determine for certain that the catfood god is behind it all.

Philip wrote:

Audie: The Essential One did a good job of expressing what is wrong with your
presentation. Does it need more, from me? I expressed it as cats discussing the origin of catfood.

How so? Not from anything I've seen.

Audie: I laugh at the "cats" who think that thro' philosophy they can determine for certain that the catfood god is behind it all.

Well, hopefully people are smarter than cats (but not MY cat). So, the choices are: The catfood creates itself and places the food in the cats's bowl by itself? OR a human does. But before there were humans or anything else, where did things originate from - that is the question. Or are you saying it doesn't matter, isn't important to know?

The problem is using logic to assert things that logic refutes, and then asserting THAT to be "logical." Logic 101: All things have an origin and a cause. You can't use logic to refute that. Metaphysics of something eternal - yes.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: The Essential One did a good job of expressing what is wrong with your
presentation. Does it need more, from me? I expressed it as cats discussing the origin of catfood.

How so? Not from anything I've seen.

Audie: I laugh at the "cats" who think that thro' philosophy they can determine for certain that the catfood god is behind it all.

Well, hopefully people are smarter than cats (but not MY cat). So, the choices are: The catfood creates itself and places the food in the cats's bowl by itself? OR a human does. But before there were humans or anything else, where did things originate from - that is the question. Or are you saying it doesn't matter, isn't important to know?

The problem is using logic to assert things that logic refutes, and then asserting THAT to be "logical." Logic 101: All things have an origin and a cause. You can't use logic to refute that. Metaphysics of something eternal - yes.

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause? yes, someone came up with the idea.

Would it exist if there were no universe?Yes, kinda, I think.
Or at least the possibility of it existing. It must have always been possible to exist because it does.

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?Why not?

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: The Essential One did a good job of expressing what is wrong with your
presentation. Does it need more, from me? I expressed it as cats discussing the origin of catfood.

How so? Not from anything I've seen.

Audie: I laugh at the "cats" who think that thro' philosophy they can determine for certain that the catfood god is behind it all.

Well, hopefully people are smarter than cats (but not MY cat). So, the choices are: The catfood creates itself and places the food in the cats's bowl by itself? OR a human does. But before there were humans or anything else, where did things originate from - that is the question. Or are you saying it doesn't matter, isn't important to know?

The problem is using logic to assert things that logic refutes, and then asserting THAT to be "logical." Logic 101: All things have an origin and a cause. You can't use logic to refute that. Metaphysics of something eternal - yes.

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause?

Would it exist if there were no universe?

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:
The word is tinge, and I aint the one with a tinge.

Do you believe that Zimbabwean Kickball is the most fascinating and important human activity?

If not, does that mean you have aZimbabwean Kickballist tinted glasses?

Poor analogy. They may at least play kick ball in Africa. Your religion is all from the realm of fantasy.

Perhaps I had the intention of tint, Ms. Smarty Pants?

The idea being not solid red, but tinted to a certain degree.
You have a deep red tint. I've had many discussions with you. You can't lie to me about it.
The red tinge is Atheism, and you are tinted quite highly with such.
It's not a solid red, but rather tinted.

And this is also what you see the world through.

On the other hand, you could say I'm tinted deeply blue with my Christian beliefs.
And again, that I see the world through such. I'm sure you have no problems there, except maybe you'd assign a pooey-brown tinge of sorts, eh?

To the person who says they have no colour, they are blinded to their bias.

So howdoes a akickballist see the world?

To answer your question in its nonderivative ie.., "So how does a atheist see the world?"

Well, we're all Atheists not believing in this or that representation of God.
Christians were considered more-so than others once upon a time in Rome.
JWs, Mormons and many other cults of Christianity are Atheists to the God I believe, and me vice-versa.

What often gets termed "Atheism" today, is the absence of belief in the all-existing something that has always existed being an intelligent and powerful personal entity i.e., like Christians believe God to be.

Given this, the only alternate belief (let me know if you see another alternative), is that this all-existing something that has always existed upon which everything else derives its existence is a non-personal unintelligent entity.

I assert that when broken down like this, it actually belies Atheism.
That is, while we are all Atheists here and there, we're all to a degree Theists also -- believing in some kind of "God" representation that we do personally acknowledge.

All "Atheists" believe in some sense of God. Christian so-called Atheists believed in the One True God of Abraham as revealed in Christ over and above any pagan god/s such that they refused to play ball with Rome.

Your modern Atheist, even your New Atheist variety such as Dawkins, believe God -- the all-existing, all-compassing something upon which all else has its existence -- is non-intelligent.

Im not Dawkins, lets leave him out.

I TRY not to view the reality around me with some sort over overlay, if I can hep it. You know how to some, everything is political, every issue turns out to be about the environment, or whatev.

Of my example of the girl with the Trinity leaf.

To the extent that a person can be aware of how they are doing a "reality filter" as one acquaintance termed it, the better off one is.


Lets try this... suppose there is no god, and nobody ever thought about there being one.

Then here comes Joe, who has (like people do) invented one, and interprets everything in terms of what he thinks this god is all about.

Who has a tinge, in this case?

(hint; Joe is you guys)

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: The Essential One did a good job of expressing what is wrong with your
presentation. Does it need more, from me? I expressed it as cats discussing the origin of catfood.

How so? Not from anything I've seen.

Audie: I laugh at the "cats" who think that thro' philosophy they can determine for certain that the catfood god is behind it all.

Well, hopefully people are smarter than cats (but not MY cat). So, the choices are: The catfood creates itself and places the food in the cats's bowl by itself? OR a human does. But before there were humans or anything else, where did things originate from - that is the question. Or are you saying it doesn't matter, isn't important to know?

The problem is using logic to assert things that logic refutes, and then asserting THAT to be "logical." Logic 101: All things have an origin and a cause. You can't use logic to refute that. Metaphysics of something eternal - yes.

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause? yes, someone came up with the idea.

Would it exist if there were no universe?Yes, kinda, I think.
Or at least the possibility of it existing. It must have always been possible to exist because it does.

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?Why not?

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: The Essential One did a good job of expressing what is wrong with your
presentation. Does it need more, from me? I expressed it as cats discussing the origin of catfood.

How so? Not from anything I've seen.

Audie: I laugh at the "cats" who think that thro' philosophy they can determine for certain that the catfood god is behind it all.

Well, hopefully people are smarter than cats (but not MY cat). So, the choices are: The catfood creates itself and places the food in the cats's bowl by itself? OR a human does. But before there were humans or anything else, where did things originate from - that is the question. Or are you saying it doesn't matter, isn't important to know?

The problem is using logic to assert things that logic refutes, and then asserting THAT to be "logical." Logic 101: All things have an origin and a cause. You can't use logic to refute that. Metaphysics of something eternal - yes.

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause? yes, someone came up with the idea.

Would it exist if there were no universe?Yes, kinda, I think.
Or at least the possibility of it existing. It must have always been possible to exist because it does.

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?Why not?

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:
How so? Not from anything I've seen.



Well, hopefully people are smarter than cats (but not MY cat). So, the choices are: The catfood creates itself and places the food in the cats's bowl by itself? OR a human does. But before there were humans or anything else, where did things originate from - that is the question. Or are you saying it doesn't matter, isn't important to know?

The problem is using logic to assert things that logic refutes, and then asserting THAT to be "logical." Logic 101: All things have an origin and a cause. You can't use logic to refute that. Metaphysics of something eternal - yes.

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause? yes, someone came up with the idea.

Would it exist if there were no universe?Yes, kinda, I think.
Or at least the possibility of it existing. It must have always been possible to exist because it does.

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?Why not?

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Again your asking God to do the intrinsically impossible.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause? yes, someone came up with the idea.

Would it exist if there were no universe?Yes, kinda, I think.
Or at least the possibility of it existing. It must have always been possible to exist because it does.

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?Why not?

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Again your asking God to do the intrinsically impossible.

But again, if he exists, and he's God, nothing is impossible for him. Just disproved God AGAIN!!!

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Looks like assertion 101 to me.

Does math have an origin? Cause? yes, someone came up with the idea.

Would it exist if there were no universe?Yes, kinda, I think.
Or at least the possibility of it existing. It must have always been possible to exist because it does.

Could god make 1 and 1 and1 equal 8?Why not?

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Again your asking God to do the intrinsically impossible.

But again, if he exists, and he's God, nothing is impossible for him. Just disproved God AGAIN!!!