Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

Hey, CI -- Glad you liked that Berkeley lecture. I thought it was well-written and clear enough for even me to follow easily.

JimM -- You read the whole article! I am impressed! You probably got a lot more out of it than I did... since you apparently understood the one-dimensional aspect which had me floundering.

... I wouldn't mind being a daffodil, though I'd really rather be a tree, possibly a Katsura (Cercidiphyllum magnificum).

Finally, Satt has focused.

What a difference a day makes,
Twenty four little hours,
Brought the sunshine and flowers,
Where there used to be rain.

My yesterday was blue dear,
But now I thought of you, dear
My lonely life is through,dear,
Since you said you were mine.

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me.
Skies above can't be stormy,
since that moment of bliss,
That willing kiss,
It's heaven when you,
Find romance on your menu.
What a difference a day makes,
And that difference is you.

Sorry, can't sing Ravel's Bolero--no words.

Himmel und Erde mussen vergehn;
Aber die Musici, aber die Musici
Aber die Musici, bleiben bestehn.

songs
Letty, where've you been. Wonderful to hear your great voice again. Couldn't you have hummed Bolero?
Piffka, where is that from?

Himmel und Erde is a German round-song with several variations to the melody for nice harmonizing. I've learned it from singing with folk-groups. I thought Letty might know it.

book mark

As to the subject of "atheism" previously mentioned, I would like to point out that defining a person's philosophical (or ontological) position with a negative title makes no sense at all; that is why I do not refer to myself as an atheist. My preference is to avoid wasting effort pointing out the deficiencies of archaic traditions for which I see no evidence, and apply my energies to improving the society in which I reside, in the here and now.

Planning for a better future should take precidence over wallowing in the superstitious past.

"[S]uperstitious past" (?)

The following could not be the superstitious past.
(Noble, powerful, not a bit of vulgarity.)



No Coward Soul Is Mine
- Emily Bronte


No coward soul is mine,
No trembler in the world's storm-troubled sphere:
I see Heaven's glories shine,
And faith shines equal, arming me from fear.

O God within my breast,
Almighty, ever-present Deity!
Life--that in me has rest,
As I--undying Life--have Power in Thee!

Vain are the thousand creeds
That move men's hearts: unutterably vain;
Worthless as withered weeds,
Or idlest froth amid the boundless main,

To waken doubt in one
Holding so fast by thine infinity;
So surely anchored on
The steadfast rock of immortality.

With wide-embracing love
Thy spirit animates eternal years,
Pervades and broods above,
Changes, sustains, dissolves, creates, and rears.

Though earth and man were gone,
And suns and universes ceased to be,
And Thou wert left alone,
Every existence would exist in Thee.

There is not room for Death,
Nor atom that his might could render void:
Thou--Thou art Being and Breath,
And what Thou art may never be destroyed.

Nice poem, Satt.

Here's a quotation which speaks to this topic of God...

An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest:
"If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
"No," said the priest, "not if you did not know."
"Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-- Annie Dillard, from Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

Good logic.

relative to the E.B. quote;

be it or be it not (no matter!), awe must be converted to action!

I have no patience with "revel"ation!

Frank,

As regards your post of Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:33 pm which quotes the very last sentence of my post of Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:34 pm:



Frank wrote:




I appreciate your attempt at editing my statement but I phrased it purposely that way because the term "recent", that you suggest be inserted, is itself relative and seemed superfluous (I would submit more specificity is demonstrated with the 98% ratio being discussed).

But, in fact the whole point of my post was: A "small" amount of differential DNA between humans and chimps does not translate to a "small" difference when the resultant phenotype is expressed and therefore that small change in genetic material is "important". My focus of importance was on the difference in genetic material not the similarity.
Consequentially the shared 98% of DNA does demonstrate potential shared ancestry and "little else".

My point in the post dealt with the fact that: Interesting in the comparison between the two species is not their common origins, for like you say all life on earth "shares a common ancestor" (Transpermia Theory aside), but what a big difference 2% in DNA manifests in the final evolutionary product.

Finally, even if one has the desire to and does alter my statement to your liking I fail to find where it implies unimportance to common ancestry. It merely restates the obvious. Once obviated the concept of common ancestry stands on its own merits.

Respectfully,

JM

Yeah, "recent" is in the eye of the beholder. For us average folk, the first one was good enough. c.i.

A very small difference between two largely similar things can be quite significant ... consider, for instance, U235 and U238 ... 98.74+ identical, yet only U235 is useful if fission is the object. Pure U238 isn't even radioactive. That's a pretty big difference, IMO. It really is the little things that make the difference.

god
I don't recall how these evolutionary niceities evolved out of our discussion of the proof for a god's existence. I would like to ask, since we are on the subject of DNA, if--given that we all agree that all life stems from a common ancestor--how much DNA does an atheist share with Jesus of Nazarus (and by theological extension, God herself)?

depends on the degree of the immaculate deception

dys, I love your answer so much, I feel like treating you to a tall one! LOL c.i.

god
No comment.
:wink:

JLNobody,

As regards your post of Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:15 pm which asks:




Given the premise you have formulated as to ancestral parameters of "Jesus of Nazarus" and a present day human that does not believe in a god (atheist), these two individuals would share as least as much DNA as a present day ape and human, so it would be safe to say the figure is equal to or greater than 98%.

However, I must admit my ignorance towards any comparable DNA ratio involving God and "His only begotten son". The mysticism surrounding God (or Gods in general) seems to break the chain of DNA transference that might ordinarily be pursued to answer your query.

However, since the Greek's believed that their Gods mated with humans and the offspring were a combination of the two, DNA analysis in this area might prove a more fruitful and interesting area of study.

JM

For someone DNA is god (or the scripture). You need god (or the scripture at least) anyway.