[da_OKUM?]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JerryLove

There are two problems. The first is that the pluralization is inconsistant. God refers to himself in the singular when talking with the Jews ("I am your God") (notice also the use of "your" in many of his sentances, or "the God of Abraham"; if there is only one God, why not just say "I am God"?)

He didn't say "I am God," rather, He said "I am."

The second problem is that he seems to talk to himself, never a good sign from a mental health standpoint.

First of all, I'm not sure God has to talk to Himself. How many times do you "think" to yourself? I'm positive that He does use words when communicating to us, but He most likely does not need to use oral communication in Heaven. I'm not sure about this exactly, just my thought.

And second, if Jesus is God, and he came to earth how come at age 12, how do you explain the religious leader's response to the words that He spoke? and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words?

Our sources are (I'm sure) equally valid. I am just more selective in making sure they fit the conversation at hand (q.v. the "Organic" discussion)

With the Organic discussion, you defined Organic Chemistry, while I defined Organic. I was simply asking how something living came from something non-living, and I just happened to use the words "Organic" and "Inorganic."

And I'd still like to know the source of the Definitions that you are using.

"deity n. God, the Supreme Being, a pagan god or goddess" when compared with his statment "that Satan isn't a diety" I think is taking the letter of the definition rather than the spirit of the definition. My point was the Satan is treated like a diety in Christianity. An evil, less powerful one admittedly, but a diety none-the-less. Look at a pagan God or Godess (say Loki) and tell me the major difference.

Okay, Loki was messed up. But that's a completely different scale. Loki was still a god, and so was Odin, but Odin did not create Loki. Odin had about as much power (mythologically and relatively speaking) as Michael, and Loki, as Lucifer.

You treat them both as supernatural biengs with power over the world and you. One you embrace, the other you despise. That is not very different from most polytheistic religions.

Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee. And then, he has no power over me.

Sure he did, for several thousand years or more. Also, Adam didn't "turn his back", he gave in to temptation, like a kid eating the cookie out of the jar. In return God kicked him (and his decendants) out of the house.

He gave into the temptation of becoming like God. Not like the kid eating the cookie, like the kid telling his parents that he waned them out of the house, and that he was boss.

So you feel that God is not omnipresent?

There are restrictions, such as sin. God can do all things, and yet he can't sin. By all things, I think good is implied.

And God knew with absolute knowledge what Adam would do from before Adam was born. If there is a difference in the analogy, it's that there is a *chance* that you would not come to the harm I expect.

Yes, but you did not create those convicts with the capability to sin, but not the sin nature. Adam had the capability of sinning, but not the nature until he ate the fruit.

Remeber what you said made me responsable with the convicts; the fact that I had knowledge of what was likely to happen. God knew for an absolute fact. If I am partially responsable, than so is God.

Not particularly. Again, see above. And also, you did not give those convicts a paradise and tell them that they could have all they wanted in that paradise, as long as they didn't touch me. And they would have to be lacking a sin-nature, so they couldn't be convicts.

Regardless of how getting a good result is accomplished, by ignoring (for example) viking mythology, you risk condeming yourself to hell for failing to die in battle; just as you claim I risk hell for failing to accept Jesus (which if I did manage, would prevent me from seeking the battle I need to enter valhala). So you see, either way, there is a risk.

Yes, but Hel in Norse Mythology is paradise compared to the hell created for the punishment of sins.

From your perspective? Emperical evidence is the most I can offer. From my own? If I didn't exist, then logically I could not think that I did. There is no such logic validating that God (or you, or this computer) exist (except from your perspective, wherein you can prove that you exist, but not that I do).

Scientific proof, probably not. But there is evidence. And lots of it.

This is true. I am reminded of an event in the late 70s. There was a guy (I forget his name, I was young at the time) who went though every university and lab to prove his paranormal abilities and was certified by several major universities as having them (universities were big into this stuff at the time). One day, at a press conference (attended by the deans and professors of several of these universities, and on national TV) a reporter asked "how do you do it?". "I fake it" he replied. He was an ameture magician, that a skeptic society had talked into going in a establishing his legitemate credentials to show that the "research" going on into the paranormal was flawed and could be faked. Interest waned after that.

One such example. Among many. But just because one is a fake, doesn't mean they all are. You offered this argument when I brought up the "Piltdown Man" story.

My friend (Denise) got rid of hers about 4 years ago and has not had a problem since. I seem rather immune to even noticing such things.

Somehow, I doubt that. Inquire further. Ask her if she really found the healing that she was looking for.

Why not? All proof of a Devil would do is establish the likelyhood of a God. Certainly a good thing.

Not necessarily. You do not (and I repeat do not) want that to happen to you. The Demon will torment you for the rest of your living days. The only Antidote is God Himself.


ps. Adam was not born.

[JerryLove]

He didn't say "I am God," rather, He said "I am."

""I am going to put an end to all people" (Gen 6:13), "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you" (Gen 9:12), ""I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless." (Gen 17:1). I have already given you examples from the same book where god says "us" (Gen 11:7, 1:26, 3:22, 5:29, etc).

First of all, I'm not sure God has to talk to Himself. How many times do you "think" to yourself?

The Bible never says "and the Lord thought", it says "and the lord said" and often when no people are around.

And second, if Jesus is God, and he came to earth how come at age 12, how do you explain the religious leader's response to the words that He spoke? and how do you explain the immense wisdom in His words?

They are unproven. The Jews didn't see fit to record this event, not even the apsotles were there.

With the Organic discussion, you defined Organic Chemistry, while I defined Organic.

As I mentioned then. You wanted to know about first life, but asked with the word "organic" where the definition you used would have rendered fist like "inorganic". I don't think any of us here really use a derfinition of "organic" that makes bacteria "inorganic life". Like the Bible, the dictonary was written by people.

And I'd still like to know the source of the Definitions that you are using.

Mirriam Webster's online dictionary.

Okay, Loki was messed up. But that's a completely different scale. Loki was still a god, and so was Odin, but Odin did not create Loki.

Actually, as Loki's father, yes he did. Odin did not create man and the like (that was done by a cow), but was still the most powerful of the human-like gods.

Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee. And then, he has no power over me.

How much power did Job let him have?

He gave into the temptation of becoming like God. Not like the kid eating the cookie, like the kid telling his parents that he waned them out of the house, and that he was boss.

After eating the apple, what negative act did Adam perform before being kicked out? Where did he tell God to get lost?

There are restrictions, such as sin. God can do all things, and yet he can't sin. By all things, I think good is implied.

That's omnipotent, I'm askling about omnipresent. Is God "everywhere".

Yes, but you did not create those convicts with the capability to sin, but not the sin nature. Adam had the capability of sinning, but not the nature until he ate the fruit.

Adam was going to sin, and that was known. How was it not "in his nature"? As a Christian, you believe that no person has lived their life without sin; if sin is not in our nature, why is this so?

Not particularly. Again, see above. And also, you did not give those convicts a paradise and tell them that they could have all they wanted in that paradise, as long as they didn't touch me.

I see, so not sinning because of reward is OK?

One such example. Among many. But just because one is a fake, doesn't mean they all are.

No it doesn't. But it does leave open that door. The burdin of proof becomes higher.

Somehow, I doubt that. Inquire further. Ask her if she really found the healing that she was looking for.

I did a few months ago when I was doing some energy work on her. Her problems (that she had for several years) are gone.

Not necessarily. You do not (and I repeat do not) want that to happen to you. The Demon will torment you for the rest of your living days. The only Antidote is God Himself.

So, if your view of reality is real, and I don't see a demon and get tormented till I turn to God, then I will be tormented for the rest of eternity. I would say the demon would be doing me a favor.

[Blindman]

Is someone here trying to use science to disprove the existence of the supernatural? If so, look out... the NSPCA will be after you. You shouldn't do that to a horse. Especially a dead one.

We've already had this discussion several times here. I stated the basic argument once, but I'll repeat it in case it wasn't clear enough the first time:

Science is a way of learning about the universe. It is based entirely on the analysis of events that are repeatable and that can be observed and quantified. As such, science deals only with the material world; it makes no claims in either direction for the existence of something outside of that world. To put that more concisely, science is based on the assumption that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore, using science to disprove the existence of the supernatural is basically equivalent to the following proof:

Given: The supernatural does not exist.
Prove: The supernatural does not exist.
Proof: The supernatural does not exist, therefore the supernatural does not exist.

You get the point. It's a circular proof because you're trying to prove your assumptions by using your assumptions. A more appropriate proof would be more along the lines of:

Given that miracles exist, and that miracles defy the rules of science and thus are supernatural, the supernatural must exist.

etc, etc. My point is, science does not preclude the existence of things that cannot be explained by science, and neer could be. It simply assumes that those things do not exist, since they could not be figured into the equation. But just because v_f^2 = v_0^2 + a * dx doesn't mean that someone couldn't fall off a 100 story building and, through some miraculous intervention, survive.

[JerryLove]

Is someone here trying to use science to disprove the existence of the supernatural? If so, look out... the NSPCA will be after you. You shouldn't do that to a horse. Especially a dead one.

So I know you are not about to bring it up.

Science is the body of knowledge. It deals with testable reality. If it has effect on the universe, it comes under sciene. If it does not affect the universe, what makes you think it exists.

Your "supernatural" and proof issue is reversed. Burden of proof is extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. That something with no evidence at all exists is what must be prooven before there is any burden to disprove it.

Given that miracles exist, and that miracles defy the rules of science and thus are supernatural, the supernatural must exist.

If that were given, your support would be logical. However, since miracles defying the rules of science do not exist, there is no support for the supernatural.

But just because v_f^2 = v_0^2 + a * dx doesn't mean that someone couldn't fall off a 100 story building and, through some miraculous intervention, survive.

Or though simple physics. Why don't you offer one that would really have to be divine intervention (after all, God is not limited to doing things physically explainable). Instead of the person who survived a fall, tell me about the one that survived a decapitation. Tell me about the person who survived having their heart removed. I hear about the "miraculious cancer remissions" all the time, though those can happen on their own. Again, since God would not be limited, tell me about the person who woke up with a lost limb magically replaced.

You can't show any verafiable instanaces of either can you?

[thrice_denied]

They are unproven. The Jews didn't see fit to record this event, not even the apsotles were there.

Just as you said, they are unproven. Neither proven right NOR WRONG. Yet the bible does speak of it. The bible, like God, is infallable. And you know why the Jews didnt talk of this. Because they believe Jesus wasnt who He said He was. And you know why the apostles werent there? Maybe because they were little kids at that time. Remember, Jesus didnt even come in contact with some of them until 21 years later.

Actually, as Loki's father, yes he did. Odin did not create man and the like (that was done by a cow), but was still the most powerful of the human-like gods.

You know what this argument of yours differes from ours? You are resorting to countless ancient, many no longer existing, beliefs. As yet we continue to stand quite well under ours, and only ours. That amazes me.

How much power did Job let him have?

none, remember, the reason God allowed this to happen was Satan said that if God allowed him to take away all that God had given Job, that Job would curse God's name. That was what Satan wanted. Job never once, even with the pleading with his best friends, cursed God's name.

Adam was going to sin, and that was known. How was it not "in his nature"? As a Christian, you believe that no person has lived their life without sin; if sin is not in our nature, why is this so?

God created Adam to be perfect. Sin was not in Adam's nature, same as Eve's. Yet because of The Fall, we are even born into sin. We are cursed from birth because of The Fall. Yet, through Christ, we are given a way to esxape the flames of Hell.

If it does not affect the universe, what makes you think it exists.

Very good point. But it has nothing to do with this argument. Especially when God has affect on the universe.

However, since miracles defying the rules of science do not exist, there is no support for the supernatural.

I have proof. My smallest sister. Because of the length of the story, i will not post it in this post, possibly later. Lets just say, you never hear of a story like this one. There arent even any statistics on this one.

[/QUOTE]You can't show any verafiable instanaces of either can you?[/QUOTE]
I am awaiting a counterpoint view on many of mine and im sure others posts that have not been replied to yet.

Lets add this analogy. Say, I put you in a room. With buttons. Lots of buttons. I say, you can push all the buttons you want to all day long, except this one. It doesnt even have to look different from the others. But there is one person who coaxes you to push the button, he says that it will make you like the one who put you in the room. Since the one who put you in the room obviously knows everything about the room. He put you there. This would more define it than most any other analogies put here.

[+Donny]

>>Since the Bible says to stay away from all religions except which every one you feel is representative of the Bible, I must ask why you choose Wicca in particular. It's a very nice religion, and creates very socially well behaved (if non-conformist) people.<<

many religions attempt to do so, some of the nicest people are buddhist, or muslim, or wiccan(sad for christians) but they still worship false Gods, the bible says to follow christianity because it is the truth

>>Neither is that he *didn't* exist proven right or wrong. You've chosen the more unlikely belief that something with no support is true.<<

ur right, you can never "prove" God's existence, however, u can prove beyond a logical doubt that there must be a God

>>This is actually proven wrong (look at the "Biblical Creationism vs Emperical Evidence" thread.)<<

hmm, i doubt this, since the biblical creation event, or anything in the bible, none of it has ever FACTUALLY been proven wrong

>>What is your complaint? That I use more than one reference? Well, since we are discussing yours, all the topics would apply to yours, but not neccessairily to any other religion. That your ability to follow the debate is so shallow as to miss the entire issue is rather upsetting.<<

hes right, he can use those beliefs if he likes

>>You - "Satan has as much power over me as I let him. If I resist the devil, he must flee."
Me - "How much power did Job let him have?"
You - "none"

So, how can you support your statement when the Bible evidences Satan getting power over people who gave him none.<<

Satan can have a measure of power, but his power is never absolute, because it is given to him by us through our folly, also, God can always take it away. Power is simply the ability to accomplish a task, well, Satan has a whole lot of ability to make us sin, so he has power, however, this power is not absolute against christians

>>This is an oximoron, sin was in his nature because he did sin. Further, of God created him to not sin (be perfect) you would expcet God to succeed. After all, not only would God not make a mistake, but God would have known from before time what the results would be, and if he wanted and Adam that didn't sin, he would have made one that didn't.<<

no, Adam and Eve never had original sin, Romans 5:12-13-{12}"Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- {13}for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is not law."
now, by giving the creation free will, it would not be sinless, we would eventually fall, however, it was "very good" then, because sin and death werent there. ANd he didnt make an Adam that would sin, he made humans that have free will



and what does this have to with harry potter, dont get me wrong, this is good, but kinda wierd

[JerryLove]

ur right, you can never "prove" God's existence, however, u can prove beyond a logical doubt that there must be a God

This has nothing to do with Harry Potter or Wicca; but no you cannot.

hmm, i doubt this, since the biblical creation event, or anything in the bible, none of it has ever FACTUALLY been proven wrong

Yes it has, I showed it wrong in that thread.

Satan can have a measure of power, but his power is never absolute, because it is given to him by us through our folly, also, God can always take it away.

What was Job's folly?

Adam and Eve never had original sin

Sure they did, they committed it. THey just did not have it at the point they were made (unless you accept that future sins are sins as they are unavoidable).

ANd he didnt make an Adam that would sin, he made humans that have free will

He made an Adam that would sin. It was predicted (and therefore unavoidable) from before his creation.

[thrice_denied]

This has nothing to do with Harry Potter or Wicca; but no you cannot.

Sure you can. But lets begin at the fundamentals since fundies is what we are. The size, position, and angle of the earth is a scientific phenomenon. A few degrees closer to the sun, we would disintegrate, a few degrees further away, we would freeze. The axis of the earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle, allowing for equal global distribution to the rays of the sun making it possible for the food chain to exist. Then there is the perfect combination of the nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen mix in the atmosphere we breathe. This just so happens to be the exact mix for life to prosper on earth. This doesnt happen on any other planet that way. The bible says the invisible things of God are clearly seen through His creation. Believing this isnt very difficult. If there is a design, then there must be a designer. If there is a plan, there is a planner. If there is a creation, there is a Creator.

There is another fundie belief. There had to be someone or something to design this that we call existence. It is a scientific fact that if something is there, there has to be something that put it there, badly worded. There must be a reason for everything. Is that not what you believe? Everything has a reason why it is where it is. Now to correct my badly worded sentence. There is a definite beginning for everything natural. That is better worded. Everything we see as reality had to have come from somewhere. Now something had to begin this. Naturally us fundies believe it is God who began this. Since something had to begin this reality, something must have created this something. When you say, you believe that no one created this reality, what you are saying is that nothing created something out of nothing. Since everything has to have a definate beginning (with exception for the Creator of the "something"). It would seem more logical to believe that something created this something out of nothing, rather than nothing created this something out of nothing.

Yes it has, I showed it wrong in that thread.

Show this to me.

He made an Adam that would sin. It was predicted (and therefore unavoidable) from before his creation.

Where before Adam was created does it say that God said "Lets create a creature that will sin.", or anything of the such.

hes right, he can use those beliefs if he likes

Yeah, I know, I was just saying, it looked odd to me.

This is actually proven wrong (look at the "Biblical Creationism vs Emperical Evidence" thread.)

No no, no redirecting. Prove your statement here.

That was my point. What is the source of your evidence that this happened? Books supposedly written by the apostles (who would not have known Greek by and large) but which appear only after their deaths, and which describe events they did not witness (like Jesus at 12).

You do understand that God wrote the bible right? He wrote it, the men simply put it on paper, or the popular sheet they had in their time.

. That your ability to follow the debate is so shallow as to miss the entire issue is rather upsetting.

Ive already told you what the issue is.

Where it the evidence?

Do something for me. Get up from your computer, go to the bathroom. Walk up to a mirror, wherever it may be. Look yourself in the eyes. Exhibit A.

I can put you in a room I have never seen.

How then would you know about the button you dont push?

[JerryLove]

Sure you can. But lets begin at the fundamentals since fundies is what we are. The size, position, and angle of the earth is a scientific phenomenon. A few degrees closer to the sun, we would disintegrate, a few degrees further away, we would freeze. The axis of the earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle, allowing for equal global distribution to the rays of the sun making it possible for the food chain to exist. Then there is the perfect combination of the nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen mix in the atmosphere we breathe. This just so happens to be the exact mix for life to prosper on earth. This doesnt happen on any other planet that way. The bible says the invisible things of God are clearly seen through His creation. Believing this isnt very difficult. If there is a design, then there must be a designer. If there is a plan, there is a planner. If there is a creation, there is a Creator.

Sigh.

1. Distance from the sun is not in degrees. So you cannot be a few "degrees" closer. Nor is the distance from the sun a constant. Nor is there something terribly magical about it. There is a "habitable" band that is large enough to encompass two planet orbits. Though in reality, temperature this side of the asteroid belt has more to dowith aptmosphere composition than with distance from the sun (you do know that Venus has a higher surface temperature than Merucury, despite being twice the distance from the sun don't you). So that statement is just a lie.

2. There is nothing terribly magical about the tilt of the Earth. More tilted and you have more severe seasons, less, you have less severe. In fact, the tilt of the Earth has very different effects based on lattitude, so the effect is inconsistant. Again, another ignorant lie.

3. There is nothing magical about the air mix. In fact, under many conditions it is pretty poor. At high altituded, the oxygen numbers are too low and it takes a great deal of adaptation to survive. At high pressures, the nitrogen causes nitrogen narcosis, oxygen becomes corrosive. Guess what would happen if you replaced 20% of the nitrogen in the air with helium? Nothing (well, the pitch of our vioce would go up). Again, it's also worth noting that the composition of that aptnosphere isn't and hasn't been constant. It started pretty oxygen free and carbon-dioxide heavy. Life on Earth has actually terraformed the aptmosphere.

OK, there goes the "miraculious design" argument for failure to offer a "miraculious design". I really wish people posting this would check their conclusions.

It is a scientific fact that if something is there, there has to be something that put it there, badly worded.

So if God is there, something must have put him there? Your statement is not only untrue, it's actually impossable.

There must be a reason for everything. Is that not what you believe?

No, that is not what I believe.

(sniping the rest as it is prediccated on the untrue premise that the universe *must* be created).

Show this to me.

Go look at the thread.

Where before Adam was created does it say that God said "Lets create a creature that will sin.", or anything of the such.

The part where he made him. Or is it your opinion that God does not know what will happen in the future?

No no, no redirecting. Prove your statement here.

Sure, tell me how it ties to Harry Potter, then convince me why I should repeat myself for your benifit?

You do understand that God wrote the bible right? He wrote it, the men simply put it on paper, or the popular sheet they had in their time.

You do understand that God is fictional right? And that the founders of the church (a rather un original bunch) created a mythology that you still follow?

Do something for me. Get up from your computer, go to the bathroom. Walk up to a mirror, wherever it may be. Look yourself in the eyes. Exhibit A.

Still waiting (BTW, I've already shown the steps for eye formation on this forum as well, "Irreduceable Complexity" (where I assume you are going) is bunk.

How then would you know about the button you dont push?

Tell me you are not serious? Your analogy was horrible, deal with it.

[chelsea_gabriel]

Cool it's all about evoultion and the existance of God
Well last night God told me He existed and He created the world through evolution so sumed that one up (Jerrylove start praying now if i was you).
As for Harry Potter.............

[+Donny]

>>Cool it's all about evoultion and the existance of God
Well last night God told me He existed and He created the world through evolution so sumed that one up (Jerrylove start praying now if i was you).
As for Harry Potter.............<<

God told you this? hmmmm, really? thats interesting..




>>Sigh.

1. Distance from the sun is not in degrees. So you cannot be a few "degrees" closer. Nor is the distance from the sun a constant. Nor is there something terribly magical about it. There is a "habitable" band that is large enough to encompass two planet orbits. Though in reality, temperature this side of the asteroid belt has more to dowith aptmosphere composition than with distance from the sun (you do know that Venus has a higher surface temperature than Merucury, despite being twice the distance from the sun don't you). So that statement is just a lie.

2. There is nothing terribly magical about the tilt of the Earth. More tilted and you have more severe seasons, less, you have less severe. In fact, the tilt of the Earth has very different effects based on lattitude, so the effect is inconsistant. Again, another ignorant lie.

3. There is nothing magical about the air mix. In fact, under many conditions it is pretty poor. At high altituded, the oxygen numbers are too low and it takes a great deal of adaptation to survive. At high pressures, the nitrogen causes nitrogen narcosis, oxygen becomes corrosive. Guess what would happen if you replaced 20% of the nitrogen in the air with helium? Nothing (well, the pitch of our vioce would go up). Again, it's also worth noting that the composition of that aptnosphere isn't and hasn't been constant. It started pretty oxygen free and carbon-dioxide heavy. Life on Earth has actually terraformed the aptmosphere.

OK, there goes the "miraculious design" argument for failure to offer a "miraculious design". I really wish people posting this would check their conclusions.<<

ill give u something from a site I found, here ya go:

The Anthropic Principle points out that there are over one hundred variables to this universe, that would have eliminated the possibility of life, if they were even slightly different. The Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible. Could this have happened by chance? Consider the following analogy.

If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think, naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters."

But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk, and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think "somebody did this deliberately." The Universe as we know it, is that carefully balanced. The only other possibility other than that the universe was created, is that there are so MANY universes, that the equivalent of one hundred quarters falling out of someone’s pocket and ALL of them ending up balanced on their edges occurred. But if there are that many universes, then the chances of a Being like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could of course, call such a Being something else other than, "God." but if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it lays eggs that turn into baby ducklings, why not it call it a duck? Paul did say we grow into Christ! ( Ephesians 4:15).

To name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the books, "God The Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in "Universes," and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe." as quoted by the web site at http://userweb.nashville.com/~Al.Sch.../anthcoi.html.

"Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster." Leslie, page 5

"The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example)." Leslie, page 34. Leslie got this information from P. C. W. Davies 1980 (Other Worlds), pp.176-177.

"A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons-- yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars." Leslie, page 4, quoting Hawking, Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10.

"The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been fond to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact, the resulting charge imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, suns--to explode violently. The cosmos would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air." "Greenstein's The Symbiotic Universe as quoted by http://userweb.nashville.com/~Al.Schroeder/anthcoi.html

" If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons are vice versa. Say goodbye, to chemistry as we know it, and to life." Leslie, pp 34-40

"The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom." Leslie ,p 30 quoting Barrow and Tipler, 143-144, 524-541. Cf. Denys Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp 171-172.

"The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4,, beryllium-8 and carbon- 12-- allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long." Wilkinson, pp. 181-183; see also John Gribbon and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York: Bantam, 1989 pp.243-247.

"A remarkable feature of the universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be too frequent as to render the universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near-misses would detach planets from orbit about their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero."Greenstein's The Symbiotic Universe as quoted by http://userweb.nashville.com/~Al.Schroeder/anthcoi.html

In a finite universe filled with life, some life form has to be the Most High Life Form. If the universe is infinite, than everything that can happen, has happened. That includes,"I Am That I Am.




>>No, that is not what I believe.

(sniping the rest as it is prediccated on the untrue premise that the universe *must* be created).<<

what about cause and effect?

>>Go look at the thread.<<

only thing I saw was about the flood, and that wasnt factual, speculation, and something about the canopy theory that had its rebuttal ignored

>>The part where he made him. Or is it your opinion that God does not know what will happen in the future?<<

God knew very well that he would sin, but without free will, we cant love him with our own choice, therefore, without free will, there cant be love and worshop for God by choice, and apparently Giod valued this more

>>Sure, tell me how it ties to Harry Potter, then convince me why I should repeat myself for your benifit?<<

yeah, im missing how this ties to potter too, and why an atheist is arguing over a doctrinal issue

>>You do understand that God is fictional right? And that the founders of the church (a rather un original bunch) created a mythology that you still follow?<<

lol, God didnt write it, it was inspired by him though, and what makes u think its mythology?

>>Still waiting (BTW, I've already shown the steps for eye formation on this forum as well, "Irreduceable Complexity" (where I assume you are going) is bunk.<<

WOW, really? i need to see this, even Darwin couldnt explain the eye

[chelsea_gabriel]

"WOW, really? i need to see this, even Darwin couldnt explain the eye"

Well you need to read Chapter 4 of Richard Dawkins - "the Blind Watchmaker"
He explains it very simply. So please read it.

[JerryLove]

Apologies for my (continuing) part in this, but Moderator, you may want to slice off the last several pages and move them to an apporpriate thread, they have nothing to do with Harry Potter or witchcraft

ill give u something from a site I found, here ya go:

Did you really have to waste the space to quite my entire trist? And why do I care what someone *else* has to say on the matter? If you have contention, *you* being it up. Don't go hide behind a web site.

"Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

OK Donny, prove that statement and show me that you uderstand your own proof and I will show you why you are wrong. (ditto the rest of your cut'n'paste job). It's also worth pointing out that the statement is untestable, ans gravity and magnatism have very different charicteristics. Like strong nuclear force being stonger than gravity at certain distances but completely ineffectual at others).

what about cause and effect?

What about it?

only thing I saw was about the flood, and that wasnt factual, speculation, and something about the canopy theory that had its rebuttal ignored

Feel free to resurrect the thread. It's far more appropriate than trying to argue it here.

God knew very well that he would sin, but without free will, we cant love him with our own choice, therefore, without free will, there cant be love and worshop for God by choice, and apparently Giod valued this more

So, God made him knowing he would sin. So God mage him to sin.

[Blindman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
It's also worth pointing out that the statement is untestable, ans gravity and magnatism have very different charicteristics. Like strong nuclear force being stonger than gravity at certain distances but completely ineffectual at others).

You seem to be a bit shaky on your particle physics here... The differences occur, not because the forces behave in inconsistent manners, but because, for instance, EM only effects charged particles, and thus has no effect over large distances, whereas the weak nuclear force effects only particles with spin of 1/2, the strong nuclear force effects only hadrons, and gravity is so weak comparatively that it only as an effect in situations where the other forces are cancelled out. Not that that really matters for the discussion at hand... And yes, I do know what I'm talkin about, I just don't find it important enough to go into any more detail.

You seem to want to approach this from a scientific standpoint, but I must warn you once again that science itself makes no claims to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science deals only with the material world, and the laws that that world _usually_ follows. It makes no claim at being able to acertain what exists outside of that material world. There is no way to scientifically disprove the existence of God, or to prove it, since if God exists He certainly doesn't obey the whims of human beings, and wouldn't necessarily comply with the experiments.

So if you want this discussion to blast off into the cosmos or zoom in on the intricacies of the atom or get tangled up in a 10-dimensional Calabi-Yau space, go ahead, but I can tell you ahead of time that it won't get you anywhere.

But the fact is, if countless people claim God, the supernatural, and the miraculous as an experiential reality, the burden of proof is on you to show other wise, just as it would be if you had attempted to prove that grass is normally red. You're tryin to dispute something that for many people is a _fact_, not just an opinion or unfounded belief.

[JerryLove]

You seem to be a bit shaky on your particle physics here...

Neither gravity nor magnatism are particle physics. They are not particles.

The differences occur, not because the forces behave in inconsistent manners,

Straw Man! Did I say inconsistant? No, I said different.

but because, for instance, EM only effects charged particles, and thus has no effect over large distances, whereas the weak nuclear force effects only particles with spin of 1/2, the strong nuclear force effects only hadrons, and gravity is so weak comparatively that it only as an effect in situations where the other forces are cancelled out.

So EM radiation (say ultraviolet light) wouldn't effect a non-charged particle (say my retina)? And strong nuclear only effects every atom in the universe, therefore is inapplicalbe?

The point (and what I said) is that the forces are different. Nuclear binding forces are stronger than gravity at certain distances, but weaker than gravity at others. The comparison in force strengths is, therefore, prefacia devalidated, as the measured distances are not cited.

Not that that really matters for the discussion at hand... And yes, I do know what I'm talkin about, I just don't find it important enough to go into any more detail.

Well, I'm glad you can tell me you know what you are talking about. Because with a simple logical application of what you are *saying* I find both a misquoting of my post and very basic logical errors.

You seem to want to approach this from a scientific standpoint, but I must warn you once again that science itself makes no claims to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Then I guess the poster shouldn't have cut'n'paste what he felt was scientific proof of God huh?

Science deals only with the material world, and the laws that that world _usually_ follows. It makes no claim at being able to acertain what exists outside of that material world.

Right science only addresses real things, not fiction.

There is no way to scientifically disprove the existence of God, or to prove it, since if God exists He certainly doesn't obey the whims of human beings, and wouldn't necessarily comply with the experiments.

No, I can just disproove what you claim God has done.

So if you want this discussion to blast off into the cosmos or zoom in on the intricacies of the atom or get tangled up in a 10-dimensional Calabi-Yau space, go ahead, but I can tell you ahead of time that it won't get you anywhere.

Is that the "I'll kick your ass if you mess with me" pre-fight posturing? It sure sounds like it.

But the fact is, if countless people claim God, the supernatural, and the miraculous as an experiential reality, the burden of proof is on you to show other wise

No, claims against reason require proof. Positive claims (God exists) require proof, not negative claims. Also, they are not "countless", just over 2,000,000,000 people believe in your God; and just over 4,000,000,000 do not.

just as it would be if you had attempted to prove that grass is normally red. You're tryin to dispute something that for many people is a _fact_, not just an opinion or unfounded belief.

No, that would be a positive assertion "grass is red". If I said "grass isn't green" then you would be required to offer some proof it was. Since getting an observable and repeatable result is relatively sime, this would be simple to prove. Now, were I to say "the sky isn't blue", and you prove it, and I wanted at that point to disprove a proven statement. Then I would have to bring up light refraction and the burden of proof would be on me.