God does not exist

I had no idea there was such a thing. Happy halloween I guess.


Ahem for the fateful

All gods are lost - they did us proud
as boastful hosts we were
Twas tried for one, but on the side
of caution we did err

Humanity stuck in their craw
though theirs stuck not in ours
Why not ourselves embody them?
And here yet poesy towers

But not as high as high we might
become if chance be praised
For yonder there is no beyond
to which our cup's not raised

:-D

 

Only if that believer is interested in evangelism.

 

Nothing is certain, not even that, and least of all history. Science is always tentative. The theory of evolution is one Cambrian rabbit away from being discredited. Refutability is its merit. And I agree that history is important, despite its limitations. History is a record of human behavior, and the patterns it records can give us insights into present social conditions--if we also recognize the changing contexts. For example, as a Christian, I think it's impossible to understand what the words of scripture mean without considering what they meant to the people uttering them, and it takes a careful understanding of historical context to figure that out. Who wrote the gospels, when were they written, why were they written? Was there a Q? All fascinating questions, and relevant to present discussions of "inerrancy". The documentary evidence is fragmentary, but I think there's enough to draw some reasonable conclusions, subject of course to the discovery of new evidence--maybe a newly discovered manuscript, our equivalent of a Cambrian rabbit.

 

I study biology, and one of my lectures said "we study evolution because it is fact, we would study religion but unfortunely there is not one single point of evidence".

 

It would be strange to study religion in a course on evolutionary biology. Has your professor studied writings of distinguished scientists who are religious? (S)he might be interested in books by scientists like Paul Davies, Freeman Dyson, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Eddington, James Jeans, Kenneth Miller, and Francis Collins. Also Robert Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God. After he and you read them, you both might revisit the issues of fact and evidence.

 

Science doesn't maintain that until something can be proven it doesn't exist. It simply says that until there is sufficient evidence, we can't accept a proposition as scientifically proven. In other words, we don't know. In that sense, science is agnostic and agnosticism is honesty. Science, by the way, tends to emphasize avoidance of Type One errors (false positives)--accepting something as true when it's not. But that can increase the risk of Type Two errors--rejecting something as false when it's true just because it doesn't meet the evidentiary standards of the investigator. Most decisions by public health and environmental officials are made on the basis of substantial evidence, which is considerably less than scientific or even courtroom. Would we want to wait until a substance thought dangerous could be scientifically proven to be so before the public could be protected from it? People who wait for scientific proof before making any decision must lead awfully restricted lives.

 

You can say he doesn't exist. But can you prove he doesn't?

 

Technically there is more evidence to support the life of Jesus than there is to support George Washington's crossing of the Delaware to assault the Hessians. History is a funny thing, as is religion.

Can you disprove creatures from Alpha Centauri?

 

.
k vuhh ma~h
go'd
.

 

You see this is what I'm getting at. These are two completely separate belief systems. Yet society tries (and fails again and again and again) to either reconcile them or assign one a greater value than the other. THIS IS the source/justification for 99% of human conflict in the history of mankind. It's a mistake, and we, as a species, must stop thinking in these terms. The world is getting too small for intolerance of any system of belief. Creationism has no place in the study of Biology or Evolution - they are too separate systems of belief and cannot be reconciled. Leave each to its own field of study and take what knowledge you will from both, or one, or neither. Why is it necessary, or even desirable, to achieve a consensus on truth, when the only truth there is with regard to "truth" is that it is always relative, and will remain so, until everything is universally known - which is impossible if you believe that the universe is infinite.

 

?

consensus is always desirable when the urgency is survival . when
time is of the essence is invoked , this means there is time for
everyone's heartsong to sing .. and then a discussion whether
long or short ...and then the important decision is created and
accepted and shall have the feeling of just right and right on time .

will there come a time when all the world shall enter into
consensus ?

some will say god bless it , and also , manipulation of the
consensus is forbidden . the second part sounds like a law , huh ?

 

If you are using science as an argument, then you probably shouldn't ask people to prove a negative.


Just saying.

 

Um, are you speaking Klingon?

 

with god (intelligence) in nature , kindness proves the positive .

 

hey , i sposed i was translating an Athiest drinking song into
words as music , and the glugbaptists would drink fruitjuice .
.

 

extinction ? so that's why consensus is not pursued . crazy

 

I create a facsimile of you. I do not create you. Further, without you, I would posit no facsimile of you. Things imagined are quantum impulses, not physical manifestations.

Spacetime grows from now. The appearance is that time is cumulative but each moment is a new age. You may compress vast amounts of time used in trial and error into a moments brilliant revelation.

This moment of now is not tethered to history.

There is a level of intensity which our body cannot accommodate. Would my highest be just slightly below that threshold?

There are states in which we are unaware of our knowing being. Knowledge is being shared, not the perception of being. Our being is complete but our perception of being is limited by focus. Knowledge is complete but it's perception unfolds within the temporal order. The facts don't change, but our perception does.

 

So we know it is fact because there are persons who were there that wrote it down. Precisely my point.