Evolution? How?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Not in the simple sense that you may mean it, since time itself is part of the cosmos that was created in the Big Bang.

Interesting comment.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The bottom line is that you are attempting to do QE without learning it, and I cannot bless that. Simple arguments about cause and effect, based on intuition obtained in the realm of our experience, are not necessarily correct.

Nor are they necessarily incorrect.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Even if it could be shown that present theory wasn't adequate to explain something, which I do not grant, the last thing I'd do would be to switch to primitive superstitions. If you have an emotional need to believe this stuff, go ahead, but don't claim a rational basis for it.

The straw man rears its head.

0 Replies

real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

I can answer that one C.I., God was not created. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. That's pretty strong stuff for anyone to wrap their head around I know, but, He is, after all God.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

Think about this.

0 Replies

BTW, we have many evidence of man creating many different gods. You cannot even provide one evidence that your god exists, but we have growing evidence that the big bang is more true than not.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Sorry, but Quantum Electrodynamics is a bit over my head. I suspect they have some sort of answer. But let me just cut this short by saying that even regarding aspects of the origin of the universe that science doesn't understand yet, just as it once didn't understand the nature of thunder and lightning, I would hardly take that as cause to postulate supernatural forces. If you criticize science for not having solved everything with convincing proofs, you can hardly turn around and offer a magical explanation with no proof at all.
Do we, at last, understand the nature of thunder and lightning? Or do we just explain it to our satisfaction?

Really, that is all the bible was ever meant to do: explain things to the satisfaction of the uninitiated.

Baloney. We understand the nature of thunder and lightning as they fit into the entire framework of Physics and Chemistry. Our knowledge of these things has worked well enough to give us our civilization, which makes it possible for you to send these words to an Internet message board, and get a doctor when you're sick. The Bible is a non-scientific document, obtained by non-scientific means, which is not generally subject to any testing or verification, and whose adherents merely dance quickly when asked for supporting evidence.
It's amusing when we are, in effect, saying the same thing. You say our understanding of thunder and lightning has worked well enough and the bible is not scientific. I agree.

Where we disagree is in your assertion that the bible cannot be verified. It can, once the straw men have been exposed.

Neo...if the strawmen built in these discussions were ever "exposed"...the Bible would be further from "verification" than it is now....because almost all of the strawmen built in these discusssions are built by theists trying to avoid responding to questions that simply cannot be answered.

0 Replies

No class has a monopoly on straw men.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

I can answer that one C.I., God was not created. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. That's pretty strong stuff for anyone to wrap their head around I know, but, He is, after all God.

And maybe there are no gods...and the universe, and all the stuff in it, has always existed.

Maybe everything is an illusion to one mind....and nothing else exists.

Maybe a whole bunch of things.

We agnostics refer to this stuff as "unknown."

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

No class has a monopoly on straw men.

Which strawman are you referring to that needs removing?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

I can answer that one C.I., God was not created. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. That's pretty strong stuff for anyone to wrap their head around I know, but, He is, after all God.

And maybe there are no gods...and the universe, and all the stuff in it, has always existed.

Maybe everything is an illusion to one mind....and nothing else exists.

Maybe a whole bunch of things.

We agnostics refer to this stuff as "unknown."

Frank,

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW according to our faith.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW according to our faith.

One point, You don't KNOW anything according to your faith, you BELIEVE things according to your faith.

Just to avoid this coming up later in some random quote.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW according to our faith.

One point, You don't KNOW anything according to your faith, you BELIEVE things according to your faith.

Just to avoid this coming up later in some random quote.

I guess I need to post the definition of KNOW again?

know[1,verb]know[2,noun]know-allknow-howknow-it-allknow-nothingknow-nothingism

Main Entry: 1know

Pronunciation: 'nO

Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): knew /'nü also 'nyü/; known /'nOn/; know·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnAwan; akin to Old High German bichnAan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know, Greek gignOskein
transitive senses

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of

(2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself>

(3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b

(1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known

(2) : to be acquainted or familiar with

(3) : to have experience of

2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive senses

1 : to have knowledge

2 : to be or become cognizant -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

Now, from these bolded definitions above, I would say yes, we know.

0 Replies

Guess I'll go ahead and post the defintion of Faith for you.

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

You can't KNOW anything about "faith".

0 Replies

Questioner,

Then, let me rephrase my original statement.

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW.

Better?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

Then, let me rephrase my original statement.

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW.

Better?

Aye, whatever.

However, speaking as an ex-believer, noone I know in the church would say that they KNOW something that requires faith. They refer to their beliefs as beliefs, their faith as faith. They see no reason to use subtlety of words to convince others that they have a leg to stand on other than their faith.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Questioner,

Then, let me rephrase my original statement.

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW.

Better?

Aye, whatever.

However, speaking as an ex-believer, noone I know in the church would say that they KNOW something that requires faith. They refer to their beliefs as beliefs, their faith as faith. They see no reason to use subtlety of words to convince others that they have a leg to stand on other than their faith.

Questioner,

I can only suggest a few things here.

1) Talk to C.I. He's the one that told me that I needed to look stuff up in the dictionary.

2) If you don't agree with the definition in the dictionary, I guess you can always lobby to have the definitions changed.

3) Talk to Frank, he's the one that is so stuck on the words beliefs, guesses, know, etc.

If all of you can straighten this out for me, I'd sure appreciate it.

Just won't give an inch, huh?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

I can only suggest a couple of things here.

1) Talk to C.I. He's the one that told me that I needed to look stuff up in the dictionary.

2) If you don't agree with the definition in the dictionary, I guess you can always lobby to have the definitions changed.

3) Talk to Frank, he's the one that is so stuck on the words beliefs, guesses, know, etc.

If all of you can straighten this out for me, I'd sure appreciate it.

Just won't give an inch, huh?

Ok, read what you wrote, read what I wrote. THIS is where arguing with you gets frustrating MA. I have NO problems with the definition of KNOW in the dictionary. It's YOU that apparently can't accept that it is DEFINABLY impossible to KNOW something about faith.

You, MA, are offering the above 3 points as nothing more than an attempt to alter the position of what I said to something else. WHY you do this is speculation, but THAT you do it is not. If you do not have the respect for me to take what I write as is, without adding your own little devious spin on it, then kindly leave it alone.

I do not alter your words, I do not call you names, nor do I belittle you. Having discarded the beliefs that I held for so long I argue here in the hopes that someone from the Christian persuasion will provide good points for me to consider, concepts I have not thought of, and intelligent conversation to back up the previous. I hope this so that I might eventually rediscover what it was I originally had faith in so that I can pick it up again from a stronger perspective.

You have so far done nothing but espouse profound statements, and then backpeddle like crazy when someone questions said statements. Your definitions in this instance are pointless. Frank asserts that there are things out there that are "unknown". He asserts this because they are things that we don't know. If we don't know them, how can your statement that "We as believers refer to these as things we KNOW" make any sense?

And kindly take what i'm saying as what i'm saying, without adding your own biased re-interpretations.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

I can answer that one C.I., God was not created. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. That's pretty strong stuff for anyone to wrap their head around I know, but, He is, after all God.

And maybe there are no gods...and the universe, and all the stuff in it, has always existed.

Maybe everything is an illusion to one mind....and nothing else exists.

Maybe a whole bunch of things.

We agnostics refer to this stuff as "unknown."

Frank,

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW according to our faith.

People do not KNOW things according to "faith."

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

Then, let me rephrase my original statement.

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW.

Better?

I'll agree with that. You folks do refer to these guesses as things that you know.

It's silly...but you are correct. You do it anyway.

0 Replies

I saw that after I posted, Questioner.

Amazing that we have to go over this same stuff as often as we do.

MA makes a guess that there is a God...and she claims she KNOWS there is a God.

MA makes a guess that the God is described accuarately in the Bible...and she claims to KNOW that the God is described accurately in the Bible.

Unreal!

But...that kind of "reasoning" does help if you are going to be a theist!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know