 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2008Does God need to prove He exists?
No. I don't think so. "I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just details." Albert Einstein Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 mitch.nicolas.raemsch@gmail.com wrote in news:75e67a00-86f5-4a77-af88- 26aa5063d279@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com: > Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/index.html disagrees with you.  SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "The fool says in his heart: 'There is no God.' The Wise Man says it to the world." Troy Witte >No. I don't think so. If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of time and effort. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as it really is than to persist in delusion, > however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. Who claims that he thought otherwise? Please tell me you can't be retarded enough to think (or dishonest enough to insinuate) that the quote you're criticizing indicates anything other than a willingness to accept evidence, and modify one's world-view accordingly. >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. And you are worse than a fool if you think we actually believe a fucktard who can't even spell it is a two-time Nobel laureate. On May 27, 12:29 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. Sagan was very much aware of how little he, along with the rest of the human race, understood about the universe, thank you very much. The amount he understood was still magnitudes greater than what you understand. > On May 27, 12:29 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The amount he understood was still magnitudes greater than what you > understand.- Hide quoted text - Since what he understood most was gabbering about thermodynamics crap, ,that's mostly why people who do understand the universe worked on robots and lasers, rather than swamps. > - Show quoted text - On May 26, 8:24 pm, John Locke <johnlocke98...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as it really is than to persist in delusion, > however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. Since he did not think that, and since it is the theists who think they know "The Truth"; you are the fool - as well as a liar. Does God need to prove He exists? *************************************** So God is a male? If you could see Him there'd be a great big set of hairy nuts dangling down? Sounds rather unlikely. > Does God need to prove He exists? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > down? > > Sounds rather unlikely. In order to prove scientifically if [the Biblical] God exists, one would have to design virtual model of love as a perfect emotion which demands complete reciprocation but which at the same time does not destry the unreciprocating. This would then be a model which contains a perpetual and unending ambiguity. Moreover, there would need to be an additional model which illustrates the condiiton of of altered malleable states of reality, as if what you think is happening isn't really happening because everything is malleable and alterable. Besids, being ambiguous, this model should also be curious in design--that is, having a remarkable shape to it, like a deep-sea creature would seem to be "curious" ***********Val > > Does God need to prove He exists? > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ***********Val Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way out. >>>Does God need to prove He exists? >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way > out. The easiest way out of "the God question" is to ignore it. BTW, that's the only correct approach anyway. If you don't have an internal moral compass you're no better than the dirt you came from. > > LaVirtu...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > anyway. If you don't have an internal moral compass > you're no better than the dirt you came from. God and the Universe are identical. Therefor, SCIENCE = RELIGION On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote: > Don Stockbauer wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > anyway. If you don't have an internal moral compass > you're no better than the dirt you came from. God and the Universe are identical. Therefor, SCIENCE = RELIGION ------------------------------------------------ Your scientific evidence for this bullshit is....? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 > On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote: >> Don Stockbauer wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > God and the Universe are identical. Except that the Universe is directly observable. >> On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote: (snip) >> God and the Universe are identical. > >Except that the Universe is directly observable. Not at the Planck level! Have you figured out a means for observing those extra dimensions that SSM Theory posits? Gordon > >> "Don Stockbauer" <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1991cd7d-dbb8-428f-8265-3dd978db67fd@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > >> On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote: > (snip) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not at the Planck level! Have you figured out a means for observing > those extra dimensions that SSM Theory posits? Extra dimensions are a big infection, not a cure. Planck limits are also an infection. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> On May 27, 8:30 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote: > (snip) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not at the Planck level! Have you figured out a means for observing > those extra dimensions that SSM Theory posits? Ergo, God exists. Thanks! > God and the Universe are identical. > > Therefor, SCIENCE = RELIGION According to your religion, that is. Signature--Bryan >>> Does God need to prove He exists? >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way > out. And then apply Occam's razor and lop off the unnecessary god entities. LaVirtuosa@aol.com wrote: > On May 27, 1:20?am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Does God need to prove He exists? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ***********Val Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way out. Lame excuse, with no factual support. I could just as easily say "god is a salt-shaker". >LaVirtuosa@aol.com wrote: >> On May 27, 1:20?am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Considering God and the Universe to be identical is such an easier way >out. It's definitely heterodox Christianity, though. >Lame excuse, with no factual support. >I could just as easily say "god is a salt-shaker". > >LaVirtu...@aol.com wrote: > >> On May 27, 1:20?am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No reason not to mention the earlier quoted quote thus: "God is a saltshaker" That seems to be a key ingredient. ************Val > Does God need to prove He exists? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sounds rather unlikely. Last time I checked the definitions of Male vs Female, I believe this ficticious god thingy is inherently female. Gods as in greek/norse gods that run around bashing each other over the head, drinking too much and sleeping around with giants, but if they're doing that creation thingy, they're inherently female. Technically, the god things are asexual, or an it, unless there's two of course. The "it" pronoun seems to work fine. Most theists when you ask them enough questions end up boiling their belief down to "um, there's gotta be something". That counts as an IT, in my book. Al On Jun 23, 11:12�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Does God need to prove He exists? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Al Jesus Christ was not a female. Robert B. Winn Jesus Christ was not a female. ========== Jesus Christ was not God. > Jesus Christ was not a female. > > ========== > > Jesus Christ was not God. Well, Jesus Christ would be the best one to tell that. Robert B. Winn > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, Jesus Christ would be the best one to tell that. > Robert B. Winn I think you need to talk to Harry Potter about that. Al On Jun 24, 6:44 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Al I do not believe in Harry Potter, Al. I am not an atheist. Robert B. Winn > On Jun 24, 6:44 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I do not believe in Harry Potter, Al. I am not an atheist. > Robert B. Winn I do not believe in Jesus christ Robby, I'm not a Xtian. Al On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 6:44 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Al- Hide quoted text - You are not an Xtian? Well, then why are you avoiding saying the word Christ? That is something the Jews used to do also. It was against Jewish law to say the name of God. Robert B. Winn You are not an Xtian? Well, then why are you avoiding saying the word Christ? That is something the Jews used to do also. It was against Jewish law to say the name of God. ======== "Christ" is not a name. It's a title. > You are not an Xtian? � Well, then why are you avoiding saying the > word Christ? �That is something the Jews used to do also. �It was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Christ" is not a name. > It's a title. Well, that is true. Jehovah was the name the Jews were forbidden to say. Hebrew names are all titles also. Jehovah means I Am. Robert B. Winn > On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > against Jewish law to say the name of God. > Robert B. Winn Well, Jesus was for the christians. Why should someone mention his name since he is a nothing. > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, Jesus Christ would be the best one to tell that. > Robert B. Winn Yes, you and your forefathers have been waiting for 2000+ years, but no outcome yet? How long you need to wait, another 2 billions years? On Jun 26, 6:20 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > no outcome yet? > How long you need to wait, another 2 billions years? It does not seem to bother us as much as it bothers you. Robert B. Winn > On Jun 23, 11:12�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Jesus Christ was not a female. > Robert B. Winn Who the hell was talking about your saviour ona stick? We're talking about that generic undefined god concept that theists commonly mumble about. Keep up Al On Jun 24, 6:20 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jun 23, 11:12�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Al- Hide quoted text - In other words, you do not know what you are talking about. Robert B. Winn > On Jun 24, 6:20 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > In other words, you do not know what you are talking about. > Robert B. Winn Where in the post I made, or in the post I was replying to do you see the words jesus or christ? Al On Jun 24, 11:00 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 6:20 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Al- Hide quoted text - You claimed that God is a female. Jesus Christ was the son of God. He lived right here on this earth. Robert B. Winn > On Jun 24, 11:00 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > He lived right here on this earth. > Robert B. Winn He was a human and died as a human, wasn't he? Your god had no ability to save him. Deal with this truth. On Jun 25, 7:22 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jun 24, 11:00 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Jesus Christ overcame death. He was resurrected. Robert B. Winn Jesus Christ overcame death. He was resurrected. ========= Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? Jesus die. His body was buried. His acolytes could not accept that he had failed to throw the Romans out of Palestine and declare himself King, so they dug up and stole his body, then wandered out among the people claiming a miracle. > On Jun 25, 7:22 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Jesus Christ overcame death. He was resurrected. > Robert B. Winn Where is he now? If he is around, we all don't have to argue, don't we? On Jun 26, 6:41 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jun 25, 7:22 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No. That is absolutely correct. We do not have to argue. Well, let's see what Darrell Stec does. Maybe there will be a truce between Christians and atheists. Robert B. Winn > On Jun 24, 11:00 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > He lived right here on this earth. > Robert B. Winn So, you are actually saying Jesus is just as human like you and me? How come he is a son of god and yet your god could do nothing in his power to save him or have him to live forever? Does this point even cross your mind? On Jun 26, 6:35 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jun 24, 11:00 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - He could have, but then Jesus Christ would have been the only one saved. Robert B. Winn On Jun 25, 7:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 11:00 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > He lived right here on this earth. > Robert B. Winn So, you are actually saying Jesus is just as human like you and me? How come he is a son of god and yet your god could do nothing in his power to save him or have him to live forever? Does this point even cross your mind? ---------------------------------------- You appear to be under the misapprehension that Robbie thinks about anything. All he ever does is trot out the same rubbish he was taught by his church ministers, without thinking about it at all. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 On May 26, 8:24 pm, John Locke <johnlocke98...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as it really is than to persist in delusion, > however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. *You are a fool for presuming he thought he ever did. On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:29:57 -0700, mitch.nicolas.raemsch wrote: >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sagan was a fool to think that he grasped more than a whisp. You have no idea how much that one sentence says about *you*. SignatureMarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock >>No. I don't think so. > >If "God" did exist, then proof would be essential. Putting faith >in an undetectable entity is shear foolishness and a waste of >time and effort. Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but puppets. We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. We would never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His own level. >"It is far better to grasp the Universe >as it really is than to persist in delusion, >however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan This is quite true, but closing one's mind against God is NOT grasping the multiverse as it really is. God is not only a part of the multiverse, He is the source of the multiverse. Think infinite fractals...where do they begin and where do they end? Now, extend this ideogram beyond our temporal reference, into the eternal temporal reference. Gordon >>>No. I don't think so. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His >own level. The religious have already been reduced to pre-programmed mindless childish robots just as you describe. Proof of "God's" existence sure couldn't do that mess any harm. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan > On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:41:47 -0500, Antares 531 > > <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > as it really is than to persist in delusion, > however satisfying and reassuring." Question-begging, though He knew, of course! Now it's the Inverse! Hilarious, but advances not knowledge! -- 'foolsrushin.' > On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:41:47 -0500, Antares 531 > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > as it really is than to persist in delusion, > however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan I agree with you. Anyway, it is up to one's belief. > Objective proof of God's existence would reduce us to nothing but > puppets. Nonsense, this frequently stated and never supported. Why couldn't I disobey? Lucifer did in your silly book. And what does that say about your belief? It would imply to me that either you are a puppet or your belief is something less than it would be if god put in an appearance. How much less? You just maybe , sort of, kind of believe? Could you elaborate? > We would have no sovereign will, no options other than to > puppy up to God and function like pre-programmed robots. Why? You asserted now support it. > We would > never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His > own level. So, you are on god's level? Just what does that mean? It sounds very egotistical to me, but then you're the one on God's level in this thread. I suppose that's reason enough for an inflated ego. Rob Brown >>"It is far better to grasp the Universe >>as it really is than to persist in delusion, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Gordon > On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > never mature into sovereign beings whom God can interact with at His > own level. And how would this state differ in any significant way for believers who presumably take god's existence as absolutely certain without objective evidence? Is the exercise of bullshitting oneself for a lifetime necessary for this growth into "sovereign beings"? It seems to me that it is only this exercise that would be lost were god to be demonstrated by actual evidence. If the bullshitting is necessary for spiritual growth, please provide your evidence for _that_. >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >demonstrated by actual evidence. If the bullshitting is necessary for >spiritual growth, please provide your evidence for _that_. We believers have already made our sovereign choice to go with God, so our compliance is not by intimidation. >>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:24:35 -0700, John Locke >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >We believers have already made our sovereign choice to go with God, so >our compliance is not by intimidation. So, you would do that even if there were absolutely no threat of hell nor promise of heaven? > On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:30:23 -0500, Antares 531 > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - There was a beginning to the universe but no before. Mitch Raemsch >There was a beginning to the universe but no before. Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'. So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness. ROFLOL! SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>There was a beginning to the universe but no before. > >Yup, It magically created the entire universe out of 'nothing'. >So it means matter can be created and destroyed into nothingness. >ROFLOL! Does the universe have net energy? > On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Does the universe have net energy? Stars can be recreated. The Sun will be in 5 billion years. >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:10 -0400, "Spaceman" >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Stars can be recreated. The Sun will be in 5 billion years. You're a tad confused here. In five billion years, the Sun will expand into a "red giant", and eventually cool down to a "white dwarf", which will last for additional billions of years. "Rebirth" isn't part of the cycle. > On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - raven? God won't let mankind die. Its as simple as that. Mitch Raemsch >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT), >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >raven? God won't let mankind die. Its as simple as that. That's a religious opinion, which is completely irrelevant to the life cycle of a star, which is a topic that is well understood. > On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:10:11 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don't deal in opinion. Science doesn't understand much. Why do you suspect that if science in a cosmic sense has barely began? Give it a million years and ask it then. Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:10:11 -0700 (PDT), >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >I don't deal in opinion. Yet you present yours as fact. >Science doesn't understand much. Science is a process of discovery. Thanks to its effectiveness, scientists understand much more than you might think. Try doing a bit of research; you might be surprised at what we actually know quite a bit about. > Why do you suspect that if science in >a cosmic sense has barely began? The above sentence makes no sense in English. > Give it a million years and ask it >then. Of course we'll know more in a million years than we know now. But even a million years of discovery is unlikely to overturn our current understanding of stellar evolution for stars the size of our Sun, (rather than adding to it), any more than f = ma or e = mc^2 is likely to be superceded by future discoveries. > On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:58 -0700 (PDT), > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years. Mitch Raemsch >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:21:58 -0700 (PDT), >> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years. Try re-reading the above again, this time, for comprehension. > Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years. Religion claims to know everything. It has been shown to be wrong innumerable times. >> Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years. > >Religion claims to know everything. It has been shown to be wrong >innumerable times. Quite the contrary, religion acknowledges that there is an infinitude of information that we don't understand..."for now we see through a glass, darkly." But, in the next life we will see it all, very clearly. This is why our current acceptance is based upon faith, instead of knowledge. Gordon > >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Gordon God does not exist in the same way that physical objects exist. Mitch Raemsch On May 28, 11:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > God does not exist in the same way that physical objects exist. Exactly. God exists only as a fictional character in the minds of humans. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 BAAWA Knight EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes nine at cox dot net On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch You exist as a human. If your god exist not in the same way as a physical object(sure he can), then he may not be beneficial to you as well........have you ever consider this? And why do you think he should take care of all the bigots? >On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >ever consider this? >And why do you think he should take care of all the bigots? God is presently in the process of separating good from evil. Until this process is completed we mortals will all be immersed in this world where evil prevails. But, we gain the advantage of learning enough about evil to keep us from ever falling back into this mess, once we are beyond it. To better comprehend how/why God is benefit to us, think in terms of a computer back-up system that is located apart from the computers it backs up. When one of these backed up computers dies, the entire contents of its storage media (mind) will be available for installing into a new computer...nothing will be lost. My state of unity with Christ, and Christ's state of unity with God provides a similar form of "back-up" for me. That's the benefit that you asked about, above. Gordon >>On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > God is presently in the process of separating good from evil. That shouldn't take too long. According to Jesus, 'no one is good but God alone', therefore the job's already done. > Until this > process is completed we mortals will all be immersed in this world where > evil prevails. Either the process is complete or Jesus is a liar. Hang on, maybe there's a third case here; the whole story is fiction. > But, we gain the advantage of learning enough about evil > to keep us from ever falling back into this mess, once we are beyond it. Wow, you're really good at knowing the intricate details of this incomprehensible god's plan. > To better comprehend how/why God is benefit to us, think in terms of a > computer back-up system that is located apart from the computers it > backs up. When one of these backed up computers dies, the entire > contents of its storage media (mind) will be available for installing > into a new computer...nothing will be lost. Did God give you that analogy? > My state of unity with Christ, and Christ's state of unity with God > provides a similar form of "back-up" for me. That's the benefit that you > asked about, above. Good for you. >>On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > God is presently in the process of separating good from evil. Please explain why your supposed god created evil. Doesn't that make him evil too? >Until > this process is completed we mortals will all be immersed in this > world where evil prevails. But, we gain the advantage of learning > enough about evil to keep us from ever falling back into this mess, > once we are beyond it. No god(s) required. > To better comprehend how/why God is benefit to us, think in terms of a > computer back-up system that is located apart from the computers it > backs up. When one of these backed up computers dies, the entire > contents of its storage media (mind) will be available for installing > into a new computer...nothing will be lost. The back-up computer is a *real* thing in the *real* world, moron Your gods are unreal, imaginary, non-existent beings that only exist in your deluded mind. > My state of unity with Christ, and Christ's state of unity with God > provides a similar form of "back-up" for me. That's the benefit that > you asked about, above. What a waste of a life, the only one you will ever have. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 >>>On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: (snip) >>>You exist as a human. >>>If your god exist not in the same way as a physical object(sure he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Please explain why your supposed god created evil. >Doesn't that make him evil too? I've posted my thoughts on this before but here goes, again. God's creation was total, complete and perfect. It had to include all possible scenarios, otherwise it would have been less than perfect. God is now in the process of separating good from evil, and we hominids are being given a chance to learn enough about good and evil to assure God that we will never want to go back and tinker around with it again, once we have been granted immortality. Gordon >>Until >> this process is completed we mortals will all be immersed in this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No god(s) required. It wouldn't exist if God didn't exist. >> To better comprehend how/why God is benefit to us, think in terms of a >> computer back-up system that is located apart from the computers it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >What a waste of a life, the only one you will ever have. My life has certainly not been wasted. I worked for years in the Aero Space industry, as a Physicist. Some of my inertial navigation inventions were used in the Mars Voyager, and are laying on the surface of Mars, now. Some are still in use for space vehicle inertial guidance means. Then, after retiring from my Aero Space position I worked for a Doctor friend, doing research on auditory implants for hearing impaired people. That has been more rewarding than my Aero Space work. But, of a much greater level of importance, I have more to look forward to than this brief mortal phase of my existence. Gordon >Smiler, >The godless one >a.a.# 2279 >>>>On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >(snip) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I've posted my thoughts on this before but here goes, again. God's >creation was total, complete and perfect. That claim cannot be true. If it were perfect, it could not become 'imperfect'. > It had to include all >possible scenarios, otherwise it would have been less than perfect. Nonsense. You are confusing complete with perfect. >God is now in the process of separating good from evil, and we >hominids are being given a chance to learn enough about good and evil >to assure God that we will never want to go back and tinker around >with it again, once we have been granted immortality. There is no evidence that there is a god or that your claims about good and evil are valid. As far as I can tell, your doctrines are central to evil. >>>Until >>> this process is completed we mortals will all be immersed in this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >It wouldn't exist if God didn't exist. Why not? There is no evidence that any gods exist. >>> To better comprehend how/why God is benefit to us, think in terms of a >>> computer back-up system that is located apart from the computers it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >My life has certainly not been wasted. I worked for years in the Aero >Space industry, as a Physicist. I don't believe you. > Some of my inertial navigation >inventions were used in the Mars Voyager, and are laying on the >surface of Mars, now. Some are still in use for space vehicle inertial >guidance means. Your job description sounds technical, not scientific. Your spelling is just bizarre. >Then, after retiring from my Aero Space position I >worked for a Doctor friend, doing research on auditory implants for >hearing impaired people. That has been more rewarding than my Aero >Space work. That's nice. >But, of a much greater level of importance, I have more to look >forward to than this brief mortal phase of my existence. There is absolutely no evidence that there is anything but the life we see. It is selfish and foolish to waste time trying to persuade a God that does not appear to exist to give your soul, which does not appear to exist, eternal life in a heaven that does not appear to exist. >>>>On May 29, 2:46 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > (snip) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > creation was total, complete and perfect. It had to include all > possible scenarios, otherwise it would have been less than perfect. Inspired babble! Perfect includes imperfect otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. > God is now in the process of separating good from evil, and we > hominids are being given a chance to learn enough about good and evil > to assure God that we will never want to go back and tinker around > with it again, once we have been granted immortality. And then God's creation will, according to you, no longer be perfect. snip >My state of unity with Christ ... Is that why you support the murders of millions of innocent people in Iraq? >>My state of unity with Christ ... > > Is that why you support the murders of millions > of innocent people in Iraq? Of course! Otherwise God's creation would not be perfect. >>>My state of unity with Christ ... >> >> Is that why you support the murders of millions >> of innocent people in Iraq? > >Of course! Otherwise God's creation would not be perfect. Ha! Good one. >>My state of unity with Christ ... > >Is that why you support the murders of millions >of innocent people in Iraq? I do NOT support the murders of innocent people, anywhere. But, this Iraq situation didn't start with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I agree, there were some mistakes made, but Saddam could have averted the whole misunderstanding, had he been more open and above board. The fact is, Muslim terrorists have been hitting at us since 1969, and there was no indication that they were going to cease and desist. We really had only two choices...sit here with our hands folded in our lap and let them strike again and again, each time with more severe damage, or we could invade the countries that were funding these terrorists and stop the process. >>>My state of unity with Christ ... >>Is that why you support the murders of millions >>of innocent people in Iraq? What millions? The ones that Sadam and his sons killed? Oh *US* will come back with some retort he misunderstands to be clever. He's ranks high among the stupidest posters to usenet. > I do NOT support the murders of innocent people, anywhere. The Iraqi people allowed what happened in Iraq to happen with no significant resistance movement (other than sometimes the Kurds.) The world held the German people responsible for Hitler and everything Hitler did. The same case can and must be made for Iraq (and incidentally for the SU and all that happened there under their dictatorships, and so forth.) There were no innocent people in Iraq. They need to start paying for the services we have been providing to them. > But, this > Iraq situation didn't start with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I agree, > there were some mistakes made, but Saddam could have averted the whole > misunderstanding, had he been more open and above board. Sadam was only part of the problem. Being probably the weakest nation (despite having, at that time, the world's 5th largest army) must have played a large role in the decision as well as location (always important when seeking real estate.) > The fact is, Muslim terrorists have been hitting at us since 1969, and > there was no indication that they were going to cease and desist. We > really had only two choices...sit here with our hands folded in our > lap and let them strike again and again, each time with more severe > damage, or we could invade the countries that were funding these > terrorists and stop the process. The USA needs a reliably available base of operations in the middle east. That need will continue for the foreseeable future. It is yet another failure of Bush not to have been truthful about the real reasons for taking control of Iraq. BTW, the poster you replied to, *US*, is either insane, or an Islamofascist which also necessitates insanity. His replies are 100% predictable as they have been 100% repetitive since his first response. >What millions? You must be too unintelligent either to keep up with current events or to understand the scientific method. "it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003" http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html >The ones that Sadam and his sons killed? The Iraqis note that Bush is worse. Go ask them. >Oh *US* ... That's an irrelevant fallacy. Why can't you do better? >... He's [sic] ranks high You seem to have become totally incoherent. >among the stupidest posters >to usenet. You sure are. >The Iraqi people allowed what happened in Iraq to happen You'd blame the Jews for what Hitler did to them, too, no doubt. >There were no innocent people in Iraq... Thanks for admitting that you don't accept "innocent until proven guilty", but it was already obvious that you lack morals or ethics. >.... either insane ... That'd be your best excuse, but you seem more moronic. >...Islamofascist ... Loon Lingo Alert! >On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:05:36 -0400, * US * wrote: >>>My state of unity with Christ ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >I do NOT support the murders of innocent people, anywhere. Sure: that's why you posted deceptive information intended only to demonize the Muslim victims of the Bush war crimes. >Iraq situation didn't start with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I agree, >there were some mistakes made, but Saddam could have averted the whole >misunderstanding, had he been more open and above board. He was cooperating with the inspectors until Bush forced them out. You're lying, again. Is that what Jesus tells you to do? >The fact is, Muslim terrorists ... That, too, is yet another of your lies. Not one of the innocent victims in Iraq has ever been shown to have been a terrorist at all. "Terrorists associated with the September 11th disaster could be called "al Qaeda Terrorists" since their involvement has been proven according to US, British, and Pakistani officials. When the Ku Klux Klan claimed credit for terrorist attacks in the 1960's, they were not identified by religion as "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Christian Terrorists." Although they identified themselves as a Christian movement, media never labeled them as Christians because their terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. We owe the same respect to the Muslim religion." http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html * US * the ultimate Islamofascist whined: >>What millions? > You must be too unintelligent That's not a valid word, BTW. > either to keep up with > current events or to understand the scientific method. Using propaganda to make a point is definitely not the "scientific method." So why do you rely exclusively on such crap? > "it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths > caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003" > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html Using propaganda web sited to back up your false claims isn't scientific in any way. >>The ones that Sadam and his sons killed? > The Iraqis note that Bush is worse. Go ask them. Those who were driven out of power would, naturally. >>Oh *US* ... > That's an irrelevant fallacy. Why can't you do better? I don't need to do any better than to point out the facts in this instance. >>... He's [sic] ranks high > You seem to have become totally incoherent. Ho boy, a spelling flame..... >>among the stupidest posters >>to usenet. >>The Iraqi people allowed what happened in Iraq to happen > You'd blame the Jews for what Hitler did to them, too, no doubt. Those who went like sheep and never made a whimper or resisted? >>There were no innocent people in Iraq... > Thanks for admitting that you don't accept "innocent until > proven guilty", but it was already obvious that you lack > morals or ethics. Innocent till proven guilty is a western paradigm which has no applicability in a Muslim context. But of course you know and understand that as an Islamofascist. But then you label almost everyone a buskultie, so where's your sense of morals? >>...Islamofascist ... > Loon Lingo Alert! Why yes, that's my warning about you, and it just can't be said enough. >> You must be too unintelligent > >That's not a valid word, BTW. Sure it is. You're merely uninformed as well as unintelligent. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unintelligent Furthermore, there's no such thing as an 'invalid' word. Yet you're merely attempting, albeit feebly, to evade the fact that your previous mistake has been corrected. >Using propaganda ...rely exclusively on >such crap ... Tell us the one about the 'WMD in Iraq', again. >Using ...false claims ... Tell us the one about the 'yellowcake from Niger', again. >I don't need to do any better ... You're not doing anywhere near well enough. >Ho boy ... Are you hoping for a turn with 'Jeff Gannon'? >Those who went like sheep and never made a whimper or resisted ... You rolled over for the Bush fascists as if you thought they were like your Tom of Finland fantasies. >Innocent till proven guilty is a western paradigm That's nonsense: you're merely unaware of where it appears in non-western ancient literature, is all. Moreover, you're claiming that you aren't sharing in a western paradigm because you reject it. Tsk. http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm >which has >no applicability in a Muslim context It doesn't justify your support of mass murders of innocent Iraqis, irrespective of their religion. You're not sufficiently intelligent to know why, though, are you. >... Islamofascist... That's a term used only by idiots/sociopaths. "Linking Islam with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5651001 >... a buskultie ... You're that because you're unintelligent and cowardly. >... sense of morals? If you had any morals or ethics, you wouldn't be a mere pawn for traitor profiteer war criminals. >... my warning ... You run around squeaking that the 'sky is falling' when your fascist masters say "BOO!", though, so you're crying wolf without a canid in sight. Don't be surprised that your credibility is as nonexistent as a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. >What millions? You must be too unintelligent either to keep up with current events or to understand the scientific method. "it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003" http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html >The ones that Sadam and his sons killed? The Iraqis note that Bush is worse. Go ask them. >Oh *US* ... That's an irrelevant fallacy. Why can't you do better? >... He's [sic] ranks high You seem to have become totally incoherent. >among the stupidest posters >to usenet. You sure are. >The Iraqi people allowed what happened in Iraq to happen You'd blame the Jews for what Hitler did to them, too, no doubt. >There were no innocent people in Iraq... Thanks for admitting that you don't accept "innocent until proven guilty", but it was already obvious that you lack morals or ethics. >.... either insane ... That'd be your best excuse, but you seem more moronic. >...Islamofascist ... Loon Lingo Alert! >>>My state of unity with Christ ... >> >>Is that why you support the murders of millions >>of innocent people in Iraq? >> >I do NOT support the murders of innocent people, anywhere. Sure: that's why you posted deceptive information intended only to demonize the Muslim victims of the Bush war crimes. >Iraq situation didn't start with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I agree, >there were some mistakes made, but Saddam could have averted the whole >misunderstanding, had he been more open and above board. He was cooperating with the inspectors until Bush forced them out. You're lying, again. Is that what Jesus tells you to do? >The fact is, Muslim terrorists ... That, too, is yet another of your lies. Not one of the innocent victims in Iraq has ever been shown to have been a terrorist at all. "Terrorists associated with the September 11th disaster could be called "al Qaeda Terrorists" since their involvement has been proven according to US, British, and Pakistani officials. When the Ku Klux Klan claimed credit for terrorist attacks in the 1960's, they were not identified by religion as "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Christian Terrorists." Although they identified themselves as a Christian movement, media never labeled them as Christians because their terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. We owe the same respect to the Muslim religion." http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html >>>My state of unity with Christ ... >> >>Is that why you support the murders of millions >>of innocent people in Iraq? >> >I do NOT support the murders of innocent people, anywhere. Sure: that's why you posted deceptive information intended only to demonize the Muslim victims of the Bush war crimes. >Iraq situation didn't start with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I agree, >there were some mistakes made, but Saddam could have averted the whole >misunderstanding, had he been more open and above board. He was cooperating with the inspectors until Bush forced them out. You're lying, again. Is that what Jesus tells you to do? >The fact is, Muslim terrorists ... That, too, is yet another of your lies. Not one of the innocent victims in Iraq has ever been shown to have been a terrorist at all. "Terrorists associated with the September 11th disaster could be called "al Qaeda Terrorists" since their involvement has been proven according to US, British, and Pakistani officials. When the Ku Klux Klan claimed credit for terrorist attacks in the 1960's, they were not identified by religion as "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Christian Terrorists." Although they identified themselves as a Christian movement, media never labeled them as Christians because their terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. We owe the same respect to the Muslim religion." http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html >>>My state of unity with Christ ... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > damage, or we could invade the countries that were funding these > terrorists and stop the process. You mean instead of attacking a country that had nothing to do with it? What a radical idea! >>> mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > God does not exist in the same way that physical objects exist. Same lame justification for God. He exists, we just can't see him. >>>> mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Science thinks it knows alot? Ask it in a million years. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Same lame justification for God. He exists, we just can't see him. Yes! God exist undetectably! Just like the IPU. So she really *is* god! >> >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Mitch Raemsch God exists at what the early writings call the spiritual level. In modern Physics vernacular this means God exists as something like quantum entanglements that produce a "mind" in somewhat the same way our human mind is produced by some 10^15 synapses between the neurons of our brain. We were created in the image of God. Not physical image, but spiritual (mind) image. That is, our mind is patterned after the cosmic consciousness that exists at the quantum level. Gordon >>> >mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > God exists at what the early writings call the spiritual level. Really? > In > modern Physics vernacular How dare you utter such words. > this means God exists as something like > quantum entanglements Name one respectable physicist who asserts that quantum entanglement exists 'at the spiritual level'. > that produce a "mind" in somewhat the same way our > human mind is produced by some 10^15 synapses between the neurons of our > brain. Ooh, a big number, it must be true. > We were created in the image of God. Not physical image, but > spiritual (mind) image. That is, our mind is patterned after the cosmic > consciousness that exists at the quantum level. Infantile twaddle! > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 11:46:45 -0700 (PDT), > > mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Infantile twaddle! Well, he does have a point. His god thing exists purely in his mind, in the bit that he labels as "spiritual" that neurologists would |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message