7
   

Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 03:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I like the early scot game by definition.
Have plotzed about water use in dry california for manicured grounds.
Interested in grey water usage..

As the u.s. gets drier and sunnier, will golf live?

Who will win the open?

I posit that golf will live for a while but that it is in trouble.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 03:56 pm
@Thomas,
I only played Pitch and Putt at Rancho, as an early teen. If one completely messed up, there was a chance of hitting a car on Pico Boulevard. Or so I remember.

My aunt's house, though, was about five houses away from a miniature golf course combined with game machines at the corner of Wellesley and Wilshire.
Thus I was a natural at putting.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 04:08 pm
@ossobuco,
celUsing less water and fewer chemicals is a priority with golf courses in New Jersey, Ossobuco. Every golf course (except for the elites) does everything it can to keep water consumption to a minimum...and to only use chemicals where it is necessary. I suspect they still use more water and chemicals than they should...but it is already much less than it used to be...and at least now, they acknowledge there is a problem that must be addressed.

I truthfully do not see golf going out of business in the foreseeable future. It simply is much too popular. Most professional athletes live for their days off...when they can get out the clubs. Women have become a huge part of the golfing community...and that bodes well for the game.

I would love to see Tiger do well at the Open...but the young guys are tigers in their own right. The opening day paring of Tiger, Mickleson, and Mcelroy should be something to see. The crowds are gonna be huge.

But no prediction for now.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 04:14 pm
@ossobuco,
I will say that I played croquet as a child and teenager, and that I loved it. (Croquet is very similar to putting, except that the ball goes through little wire goals, not holes in the grass.) So I know I'd like putting, but I never tried to drive.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 04:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The early days (not that I've looked up golf origin lately) there was none of this stuff, it was about hitting a ball around the land as it was. When I lived up in northern california, it was a sort of similar area, so I have a sort of sense of it, though their golf courses were as manicured as others. I've never been to the Isles of whatever government.

I don't think it would hurt golf to gradually get rougher, but it could be bad for upkeep firms.

I like Rory and many other young guys, along with the occasional Darren, but I figure someone else will take this one.
Keegan can be good, not sure he fits this site.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 04:27 pm
@Thomas,
I played croquet in Chicago - what I think of as my typical childhood years in contrast to other years. Very formative. I wasn't bad at it.
The only thing I was bad at then - extremely new to sports when we moved there - was batting in Sister Mel's sort of advanced recess baseball games. After school I could hit the ball, in 'class', a flub up.

My father took me to a driving range when we lived in LA, probably Rancho, a public golf course.
The great thing about Rancho was the restaurant, where they served completely fabulous lemon meringue pie.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 04:28 pm
Does lemon meringue pie mean there is a god?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 05:02 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Does lemon meringue pie mean there is a god?




No, but really creamy coconut custard pie might!
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 05:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Ok, then.
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 05:40 pm
@Joe Nation,
Still, your argument doesn't convince me.

I agree that something must be eternal, but what?
I'm not pretending to know, cause frankly I don't know.
How is the physical universe able to overcome entropy? Is there any scientific proof anywhere that something can really do this? Certainly this must be proven some way, some day.

But how?

Common sense makes you guess that the universe must be infinite, but that is almost impossible to prove... unless you have an explanation/ proof which I'm not aware of.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 07:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

All I have ever heard from atheists in defense of their blind guess that there are no gods are variations on two themes:'

One...the theists cannot produce a god for examination.

Two...there is no need for gods to explain existence.


As for number one: If there are gods and they do not want to be seen or examined, I cannot think of any reason why they could not prevent people from seeing or examining them. That theme falls flat!

As for number two: There is nothing about existence that requires there be no gods. If a theist were to suggest that because "there is nothing about existence that requires there be no gods" is reason to suggest "therefore gods exist"...you atheists would rightfully laugh at the argument.

You ought to laugh at that second theme for the same reason.



Three. Somebody made up the notion of a god, the way a child invents the imaginary friend. We do not have to respond to some guy's bizare imagination as though he had something, when he has nothing.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 08:31 pm
@Val Killmore,
I think if we are going to have anything be eternal, it might as well be this existence, rather than some amorphous drunken uncle who loves us one moment and rains death and despair on us the next.
Read the 4 percent Universe by Panek for a blow by blow description of how far Cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy and metaphysics have come in the last century.
We know several things now. The shape of the Universe. It's kind of flat.
The speed at which it is both expanding and slowing down.
We can do the calculations which predict the placements of galaxy clusters over the next couple of hundred years.
But more, we now know that all the stuff in the Universe that we can see (stars, galaxies, belts of galaxies) amount to only 4% of what's in the Universe. If every star, moon,planet, asteroid disappeared in the next 30 seconds, the Universe wouldn't even tremble.
Poof.
What remains to be examined is dark matter and dark energy AND the new facts that a) There seems to be a black hole in the center of every galaxy including our own and b) those black holes generate radiation at the same rate as they swallow up matter.
We have a ways to go.
The thinking now is this: the universe is flat and expanding and will, at some point, stop expanding; it is at that point that both dark energy and dark matter will begin to matter, either by beginning a compressive phase, the reverse of the inflation/ expansion phase we are now in OR a consumptive phase wherein all the remaining matter in the Universe is consumed by the dark energy (or something else not yet discovered) to a point where all of the energy comsumed cannot be held and <<<<<boom>>>> we start over.

Joe(Hurrah for WIMPS)Nation
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 08:46 pm
Quote:
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Quote:
As soon as you can tell why you think there's a reason for a god to exist in this eternal universe, I'll join you in guessing that there might be some kind of deity out there. Right now, there are no openings for a Creator.



Quote:
Joe Nation, as soon as you can tell me why you are using the fact that there is no necessity for a god to establish that gods do not exist...we will be getting somewhere.


No, Frank, we will actually be getting somewhere when you actually answer any of my questions with something other than a question.
Let's try again.
Here's the first question I asked you on the other thread which you never answered.
What is a god?
That question leads to the one above, to wit:
Tell me why you think there's a reason for a god to exist in this eternal universe?

That's the way this process should work, you put out a statement, we get to ask you questions about it and you provide answers to us. We have a discussion, not an evasion combined with a rote repetition of your previous statements.

Regards,
Joe(enjoying ironically enough, a Milky Way)Nation

Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 09:41 pm
@Joe Nation,
Where do you get such "proven" conclusion??
I don't see a real life evidence.

The crowd of science whizzes hasn't come to any conclusions either. The universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, from which we can deduce the very early universe was small, dense, and very hot. It is hard to tell if such a phenomenon is the beginning or just point of transition. Currently, it is impossible to tell.

"Speculating, rationally or otherwise, upon the unknown falls to philosophy, not science." -Raithere
Until your speculation falls in the science category, Joe, I'll still doubt and question/ not believe your argument.

As you can see the pattern, it is almost impossible to prove a material creation that is infinite, at least not yet....

Is the Universe eternal?
I say not yet. (It's a joke Very Happy)


Your theory can not be "proven" currently, and you are trying to make it sound logical, well that's all anyone can do with the lack of evidence.

Ultimately, Joe, from my thought analysis there is no philosophical choice but a self existing first cause that was uncaused. This is philosophically and logically acceptable. All other options diminish philosophical logic and you end up with a recursive argument.Tautology really, or circular reasoning that gets us nowhere.

This (self existing first cause that was uncaused) may be an unsatisfactory outcome for some but it is the only outcome of the philosophical logic, avoiding recursion.


While taking a quantum physics class (some years ago), when asked the professor if the universe is eternal, he suggested that opposite, that the universe is finite. Because he explained, physics can't explain a practical model to explain an eternal/infinite universe.

mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:31 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

The speed at which it is both expanding and slowing down.

The expansion of the universe is slowing down? I thought it was accelerating.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2012 01:35 am
@mesquite,
Your thought is correct, as I mentioned above.

Quote:
The universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, from which we can deduce the very early universe was small, dense, and very hot. It is hard to tell if such a phenomenon is the beginning or just point of transition. Currently, it is impossible to tell.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2012 02:42 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Three. Somebody made up the notion of a god, the way a child invents the imaginary friend. We do not have to respond to some guy's bizare imagination as though he had something, when he has nothing.


Saying that a person who guesses there are gods "has nothing" is itself a guess. I have no problem with you guessing.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2012 02:47 am
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
No, Frank, we will actually be getting somewhere when you actually answer any of my questions with something other than a question.
Let's try again.
Here's the first question I asked you on the other thread which you never answered.
What is a god?
That question leads to the one above, to wit:
Tell me why you think there's a reason for a god to exist in this eternal universe?

That's the way this process should work, you put out a statement, we get to ask you questions about it and you provide answers to us. We have a discussion, not an evasion combined with a rote repetition of your previous statements.

Regards,
Joe(enjoying ironically enough, a Milky Way)Nation


No, JoeNation, that is not the way it works.

In any case, I have said that some people "believe" there are gods and some people "believe" there are no gods. I am not one of those people. I do not believe there are gods and I do not believe there are no gods. ANY KIND OF GODS.

Whether I think there is a reason for a god to exist does not come into play. There is absolutely no reason that I can think of for black holes to exist...but that does not mean they cannot or do not exist.

Further, atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods...all they can do is guess or believe that to be the case. Theists still have the possible chance of knowing.

Why not comment on that?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2012 08:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
You haven't defined the words "gods" and "god" by which you are basing your assertion. How is anyone to know what, exactly, you are talking about before one is able to proceed to address this assertion of yours?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2012 08:36 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
You haven't defined the words "gods" and "god" by which you are basing your assertion. How is anyone to know what, exactly, you are talking about before one is able to proceed to address this assertion of yours?


I think you and Joe Nation and the other atheists here understand what people mean when they talk about a GOD or about gods. The question asking for a definition is just a stall atheists use.

In any case, atheists CANNOT KNOW that there are no gods (of any kind)--all they can do is guess. Theists, on the other hand, can possibly know there is a GOD.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 12:22:31