We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. (The Church says that we can be certain).

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to knowledge about the physical reality.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

wow, you really told us, and without making yourself sound stupid or out of touch with reality either. bravo.

Lawdog. All jews go to Hell, correct? All Muslims?

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so.

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

I'm really trying to be polite here Lawdog, but it's very difficult when you talk such shit. Just because the Catholic Church says it's so, doesn't fucking make it so! They offer no proof, evidence, anything, to substantiate their claims. Even IF a God of some description exists, then how the Holy fuck can you or anyone else know what 'he' wants from humanity?? It's pointless worshipping something you cannot comprehend, or even begin to comrephend.
So, I'm supposed to dedicate my life to the wishes of some old farts in the Vatican and more old farts that preach in church about who God loves, why he does what he does, and how Jesus loves me and is my saviour? NO FUCKING WAY!!
I believe in this, treat other humans and animals as you would wish to be treated yourself. This means no rape, murder, stealing, oppression.....you get the picture, don't you? I don't care if you believe in God, good luck to you if you do. But don't tell me crap like homosexuals are going to burn for all eternity when they die, the Earth was created in six days and genocide is ok if God says so. Get real and stop spreading hate and ignorance.

This is actually the case. The main reason Man was put on earth is to worship God.

What is amazing that so many billions suscribe to so seemingly an absurd belief and trust in The Church.

I believe because it is absurd.

This is actually the case. The main reason Man was put on earth is to worship God.

What is amazing that so many billions suscribe to so seemingly an absurd belief and trust in The Church.

I believe because it is absurd.

Of course they do, mostly because that is what they are told by their parents. Do as you are told or you will burn in Hell, shit, that would work on a lot of young kids!
Also it feels warm and safe to be part of a huge club, be it a religious group or football supporters club.
Some people don't want to let go of their irrational beliefs becuase they are scared. Some will not because it is their job to preach and convert, and to keep the religious machine running. If the growing number of atheists in the USA and UK are anything to go by then how long does organised religion have left?

This is actually the case. The main reason Man was put on earth is to worship God.

What is amazing that so many billions suscribe to so seemingly an absurd belief and trust in The Church.

I believe because it is absurd.

how do you feel about the sale of indulgences?

I just groaned when I read this thread. It's people like Lawdog that lowers my faith in humanity. It's people like this that support conflict around the world today. Religion is dangerous, as this thread shows.

[QUOTE]Of course they do, mostly because that is what they are told by their parents. Do as you are told or you will burn in Hell, shit, that would work on a lot of young kids! sensationalist.
Also it feels warm and safe to be part of a huge club, be it a religious group or football supporters club. I do not feel safe. the devil, the Flesh and the World are a realities that which are great threats.
Some people don't want to let go of their irrational beliefs becuase they are scared. Some will not because it is their job to preach and convert, and to keep the religious machine running. If the growing number of atheists in the USA and UK are anything to go by then how long does organised religion have left? growing number of atheists...what should that tell you? That the apocalypse prophesied by Our Lord is coming.

how do you feel about the sale of indulgences?

a tragedy...but Luther should have been locked up anyway.

Lawdog,
We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so.

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.So, we should believe them because they said so? That doesn't sound very credible to me. So, what stops everyone from believing what other religious organizations just because they said so?

Everything you said can be used by other religious organizations. What separates them? I bet you'll just go back to saying God endowed only the Roman Catholic Church. And I'll know what I'll say, other organizations probably say the same darn thing about their own god(s).

Your argument is based on someone saying so and everyone else is wrong. There is no logical discussion here. Just you using the old, "Because I/they/he/she said so."


[Renrue]

Your argument is based on someone saying so and everyone else is wrong. There is no logical discussion here. Just you using the old, "Because I/they/he/she said so."


[Renrue]

A lot of what goes on in the name of science works on the same principle - a hand full of people carry out some experiment or observation and there is a hierarchy of dissemination of informtaion that brings the findings down to the joe on the street via time magazine - if your argument is that something can only be true if it is directly to perceivable to the masses you ar e left with a pretty narrow world view - ant interestingly it is the upper end of the culture of knowledge that you will be eliminating- does that mean we can also exclude such other fictional entities like electrons and people's minds?

We certainly can if we uniformly apply the general principes you are advocating against religion.

On the other hand if we can recgnize who is qualified and who is unqalified it becomes a safer proposal to accept information on the basis of the speakers credibility.

A lot of what goes on in the name of science works on the same principle - a hand full of people carry out some experiment or observation and there is a hierarchy of dissemination of informtaion that brings the findings down to the joe on the street via time magazine
One difference being that science also says "this is what we intially thought, this is how we did it, these are the results - please check our work and let us know where, if at all, we went wrong in reaching this conclusion".
Another being that the existence or otherwise of electrons, and peoples' minds for that matter, has no real bearing on how people live their lives on a day-to-day basis. An electron doesn't mind if you don't believe in it, it doesn't require worship, it doesn't seek to arbitrate on ethical standards...

lightgigantic,
A lot of what goes on in the name of science works on the same principle - a hand full of people carry out some experiment or observation and there is a hierarchy of dissemination of informtaion that brings the findings down to the joe on the street via time magazine - if your argument is that something can only be true if it is directly to perceivable to the masses you ar e left with a pretty narrow world view - ant interestingly it is the upper end of the culture of knowledge that you will be eliminating- does that mean we can also exclude such other fictional entities like electrons and people's minds?

We certainly can if we uniformly apply the general principes you are advocating against religion.

On the other hand if we can recgnize who is qualified and who is unqalified it becomes a safer proposal to accept information on the basis of the speakers credibility.I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think you actually understand how scientific findings are spread to the world. It is not a handful, for most findings are done by many other people. You don't always see the same name pop up when a breakthrough is discovered.

Not only that, the reason science is so wonderful is because other people can perform the same experiment for themself. That's right. lightgigantic, go find a scientific experiement and do it. You'll observe the effects mentioned. Therefore, you yourself can make your own educated opinion.

However, I cannot go back in time and see Jesus and all his works. I cannot go witness Jesus giving power to the Catholic church. How can I make my own opinion? I can't. With science, you can do it yourself.


[Renrue]

religion is and always will be a matter of faith. it does not as stated before have to be proven. the whole point of religion is to believe despite the lack of evidence ie faith.
it is unsettling how atheism has almost become a religion of its own. there are so many athiests in this forum attempting to use science as a way of converting everyone to nonbelief it's funny. what makes it funnier is that these same people are accusing the theists of doing the same. however, the only attempt i've read made by theists is to assert the existance of god. not once have i seen a post where a theist is accusing an atheist of being a hell-bound immoral person. and yet there are the athiests that use the word "delusional" to describe the religious.
it would seem to me that the athiests are the ones insecure enough to infringe on the beliefs of others.

The main reason Man was put on earth is to worship God.

Why does god want us to worship him? What good does that do?

Why does god want us to worship him? What good does that do?

why does "W" want us to agree with everything he says? why did kings of olde insist on servitude? ;)
seriously, the way it goes is, he gave us life. he made our world. we are suppose to thank him for it.

Why does god want us to worship him? What good does that do?

Worship is an all-encompassing thing; it does not just mean going down on your knees.

In Islam, appreciating the good things in life, avoiding waste, feeding the hungry, looking after those who are less blessed than you, giving a part of your income to those in your family, community, as well as strangers, sharing your meal with someone, studying the creation of God ( i.e. all things in the Universe), reading and travelling far to acquire knowledge.....all these are considered worship.

nubianconcubine:

Delusion means to believe in spite of zero evidence. This fits you, lightgigantic and our friend Lawdog down to the ground. And no it's not funny, I am apalled.

he gave us life.

Evidence?

he made our world.

Evidence?

we are suppose to thank him for it.

Evidence?

If you can not provide any evidence you are suffering from a superstitious delusion. That is inescapable.

it would seem to me that the athiests are the ones insecure enough to infringe on the beliefs of others.
Insecurity has nothing to with it. (Why would it?) We want to know WHY you have belief in something for which there is no evidence, what prompts that belief, what sustains it?

We want to know WHY you have belief in something for which there is no evidence, what prompts that belief, what sustains it?

Questions like this are too easy for a theist Oli.

It is something 'inside' and 'all around' them, duh...

D'oh. Now I'm feeling insecure. :D

kennyJC
If you can not provide any evidence you are suffering from a superstitious delusion. That is inescapable
----------------------------------------------------
you provided enough evidence what is your evidence? words? words words words
first we need to know what god is? hmmm a spirit! where is the evidence that spirits
exist, i rest my case

we have no evidence that god exists but.. who has? the extraterrestrials?
now i am confused ufos exist? we have words words words of ufo sightings
where are the ufos i ask why we dont see any? hmmm words words books books
etc

my question is:

why do you care? if you don't want to believe it, don't. but what is it that drives you to harrass those of us that choose to believe?

my question is:

why do you care? if you don't want to believe it, don't. but what is it that drives you to harrass those of us that choose to believe?

There's 14% atheists and 86% theists ( approx); they want to increase their count so they can grab power. Its all the testosterone. They cannot stand being a minority. :D

look noone knows what exists really humanity thinks it knows it just thinks so
but things could be otherwise i dont harrass when i present an argument in a discusssion

Bear in mind that you're posting on a science forum... it's not harassment: to anyone posting and making statements of any sort the first question is always "what evidence do you have to support this conclusion?"
Some theists come here to "prove" god exists scientifically, some come to see if there's any evidence, some come merely argue. And to a good number (if not all) of all of those the answer is the same: "if you don't want us to ask questions then go elsewhere, this is a science forum". Some go, some stay. Presumably many of those that stay enjoy the argument/ discussion, if nothing else it passes the time. :D

Samcdkey:
14%:86% where? In the world or on the forum?
Me, I'm in a minority of one. Always have been.

There's 14% atheists and 86% theists ( approx); they want to increase their count so they can grab power. Its all the testosterone. They cannot stand being a minority. :D

yeah, i'm feelin' it. :mad:
what bugs me is that i hated being pushed to believe so i almost went the way of athiesm. and now i'm being pushed by atheists. how screwed up is that?!

my question is:

why do you care? if you don't want to believe it, don't. but what is it that drives you to harrass those of us that choose to believe?

War, beheadings, abusing children by indoctrinating them in state schools, social issues pedalled by the christian right, intolerance, restriction of freedom, racism, homophobia, terrorism, opression of women, George Bush and the blatantly irrationality of every aspect of your belief.

So you see, your faith is not an individual thing, it collectively fucks up our society and our world. To respecting such delusional beliefs which make for an unstable group of people with questionable motives would be silly. Why do you think secular societies are healthy and peaceful and religious ones at war?

Bear in mind that you're posting on a science forum... it's not harassment: to anyone posting and making statements of any sort the first question is always "what evidence do you have to support this conclusion?"

so is philosiphy a science?

us that choose to believe?
i hated being pushed to believe
You were pushed into choosing belief? That is screwed up.

Not by the definition of science: experiments are rather difficult to do...
But I assume you're referring to the fact that there's a Philosophy section - anyone making assertions gets the same treatment - tell us WHY you beleive what you've just stated.
(Neither is pseudoscience and there's a section for that as well. All grist to the mill.)

War, beheadings, abusing children by indoctrinating them in state schools, social issues pedalled by the christian right, intolerance, restriction of freedom, racism, homophobia, terrorism, opression of women, George Bush and the blatantly irrationality of every aspect of your belief.

So you see, your faith is not an individual thing, it collectively fucks up our society and our world. To respecting such delusional beliefs which make for an unstable group of people with questionable motives would be silly. Why do you think secular societies are healthy and peaceful and religious ones at war?

:bugeye: do you hold yourself responsible for the doings of your peers? religion, like any other organization, is subject to the evils of its - only human - members.
hell, i don't like any of the issues you brought up and i don't practice them and i DON'T think those priests should be forgiven. my belief helps me to avoid that shit. but i can't speak for my fellow man any more than you can.

kennyJC
If you can not provide any evidence you are suffering from a superstitious delusion. That is inescapable
----------------------------------------------------
you provided enough evidence what is your evidence? words? words words words
first we need to know what god is? hmmm a spirit! where is the evidence that spirits
exist, i rest my case

All I have to do is point you to the dictionary. Look up superstition and delusion. My lack of belief does not tie in with those definitions when relating to religion/God.

You were pushed into choosing belief? That is screwed up.

:bugeye:
did i say that? i said i was pushed to believe. however, i did my own reading and soulsearching and came to my own conclusions. sorry, that i don't feel the way you happen to.
:D

All I have to do is point you to the dictionary. Look up superstition and delusion. My lack of belief does not tie in with those definitions when relating to religion/God.

no, but we could use the term "denial" loosely.

other religion joke
the americans try to measure space and they cant it is too big
america in it is getting smaller smaller smaller

Samcdkey:
14%:86% where? In the world or on the forum?
Me, I'm in a minority of one. Always have been.

In the world:

Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.3 billion
Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese folk religion 394 million
Buddhism 376 million, not including Chinese folk Religion (see also Buddhism by country)
Primal indigenous ("Pagan") 300 million
African traditional and diasporic 100 million
Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism 14 million
Bahá'í Faith 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Shinto 4 million (see below)
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-Paganism 1 million
Unitarian Universalism 800,000
Rastafari movement 600,000

:bugeye: do you hold yourself responsible for the doings of your peers? religion, like any other organization, is subject to the evils of its - only human - members.
hell, i don't like any of the issues you brought up and i don't practice them and i DON'T think those priests should be forgiven. my belief helps me to avoid that shit. but i can't speak for my fellow man any more than you can.

Well just ask yourself if the ills in my post would be as common in a secular country. I will help you out here: They wouldn't.

It's not my concern if you are such a weak person, you need religion to stay away from 'evil' doings. With religion, people are not encouraged to be rational, or educated, hence all the social ills that come with that mentality.

Well just ask yourself if the ills in my post would be as common in a secular country. I will help you out here: They wouldn't.

It's not my concern if you are such a weak person, you need religion to stay away from 'evil' doings. With religion, people are not encouraged to be rational, or educated, hence all the social ills that come with that mentality.

show me a secular society with none of the ills of a religious society. in fact, point this utopia out to me on a map so that i can move there and live happily. better. why don't you move there and stop complaining about it.

War, beheadings, abusing children by indoctrinating them in state schools, social issues pedalled by the christian right, intolerance, restriction of freedom, racism, homophobia, terrorism, opression of women, George Bush and the blatantly irrationality of every aspect of your belief.

So you see, your faith is not an individual thing, it collectively fucks up our society and our world. To respecting such delusional beliefs which make for an unstable group of people with questionable motives would be silly. Why do you think secular societies are healthy and peaceful and religious ones at war?

We just had this discussion in another thread. Chimps hunt and murder other chimps(power); dolphins bludgeon porpoises for no apparent reason except pleasure ( sadism); cats toy with and kill animals they won't even eat and killer whales eat only the lips and tongues of the whales and then leave them to die (torture). Violence is an inherent part of nature. Animals are territorial, they kill and maim for their perceived territory; they murder their children. Human beings do all these things and more and the only difference their consciousness make sis that they think of more sadistic ways in which to do it. Violence has no relationship with religion.

samcdkey:

What does your listing prove except that the majority of humans are easily persuaded be the fantasies of religion?

It's not easy to be rational and educated you know... :D

show me a secular society with none of the ills of a religious society.

Easy. Take a look here and have a look at the countries with high amounts of atheism.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing.

We just had this discussion in another thread. Chimps hunt and murder other chimps(power); dolphins bludgeon porpoises for no apparent reason except pleasure ( sadism); cats toy with and kill animals they won't even eat and killer whales eat only the lips and tongues of the whales and then leave them to die (torture). Violence is an inherent part of nature. Animals are territorial, they kill and maim for their perceived territory; they murder their children. Human beings do all these things and more and the only difference their consciousness make sis that they think of more sadistic ways in which to do it. Violence has no relationship with religion.

Yes, but you never answered why this is characterized depending upong the strength of religious belief amongst the people searching for power.

Lawdog,

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so.LOL - the biggest joke in human history. LOL

You cannot be so dumb and naive, can you?

Easy. Take a look here and have a look at the countries with high amounts of atheism.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

:bugeye: do you realize that the first six paragraphs of your proof are a disclaimer for the possible inaccuracies of the following evidence? how can you demand scientific - not theory, not assumption, but concrete-bona-fide-lab-result - evidence of religious justification and expect me to believe a report that is admittedly incomplete?
i won't even read it. :p

Lawdog,

LOL - the biggest joke in human history. LOL

You cannot be so dumb and naive, can you?

he can, he can

Easy. Take a look here and have a look at the countries with high amounts of atheism.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing.



Yes, but you never answered why this is characterized depending upong the strength of religious belief amongst the people searching for power.


Aren't you making a rather big assumption here? Are the atheists running the governments in those countries? And those countries have gone through massive extensive genocides, they have had TIME to grow, to be financially and economically viable. The other countries are still economically backward and the US has always had poor foreign policies. Have you considered that there may be as many atheists in the other countries? Are the polls that accurate? Can you be certain that the number of atheists in the ME or the US are not comparable? Due to social pressures they may not declare themselves, but numbers really do not tell the complete story, you know. You guys are in science; do you accept any evidence so easily; merely because it fits in with your notions?

Because
A ) the methodology is stated, even the possible flaws are pointed out
B ) the figures given cover a large sample of polls taken
C ) it is not presented as "incontrovertible proof"
D ) anyone can follow the methods and get their own results if they wish to dispute them
All in all a scientific undertaking that gives its conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Theists present none of the above.
[quote]i won't even read it[/i]
Wow, that was unexpected. Not.

samcdkey:

What does your listing prove except that the majority of humans are easily persuaded be the fantasies of religion?

It's not easy to be rational and educated you know... :D

It is for me; I really couldn't speak for you
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/eviltongue.gif

Due to social pressures they may not declare themselves
If social pressures prevent US citizens admitting they're atheist that in itself surely says something about the level of theism in the society, no?

Because
A ) the methodology is stated, even the possible flaws are pointed out
B ) the figures given cover a large sample of polls taken
C ) it is not presented as "incontrovertible proof"
D ) anyone can follow the methods and get their own results if they wish to dispute them
All in all a scientific undertaking that gives its conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Theists present none of the above.
[quote]i won't even read it[/i]
Wow, that was unexpected. Not.

So you think that atheists in the middle east are going to declare themselves because the polls say so? Rather naive of you.

If social pressures prevent US citizens admitting they're atheist that in itself surely says something about the level of theism in the society, no?

But the US is the country with the education and standard of living comparable to the best. Do you see people leaving in droves or arriving?

A realistic interpretation of Lawdog’s opening post.

We can be certain that God does not exist because the corrupt institution known as the Roman Catholic Church says otherwise.

No scientific evidence has ever been produced or will ever be produced to show that God exists.

Only the Church in its delusion thinks it has the right, given by ignorant corrupt politicians, to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the Christian fantasy.

The Church also correctly affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, if evidence was available, that God exists, yet no one in human history has ever been able to show any such evidence.

However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless since without even a tiny scrap of evidence science has absolutely nothing to consider.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground, but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality. And that reality shows absolutely no evidence of gods or any need for them.

God is pure fantasy; therefore Science has absolutely nothing to consider.

Because
A ) the methodology is stated, even the possible flaws are pointed out
B ) the figures given cover a large sample of polls taken
C ) it is not presented as "incontrovertible proof"
D ) anyone can follow the methods and get their own results if they wish to dispute them
All in all a scientific undertaking that gives its conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Theists present none of the above.
[quote]i won't even read it[/i]
Wow, that was unexpected. Not.

first, let me say i admire how very clever you are. Not.
next i ask again, why should i believe it? i know two atheists that have the same problems i have. and strangely enough, they don't have your pompous attitude.
that report is a crock. bush's presence in office at this very moment is an example of how unreliable numbers can be.

Don't see anyone at all in the US from where I sit, too far away. :D
But from that report:
According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism.
the top 25 nations with the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high percentages of organic atheism
found that of the 40 poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of each nation’s population that lives on less than $1.00 a day), all but one (Vietnam) are highly religious nations
found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but one (United States) were highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism
And so on for literacy, gender equality, the only reversal of the "trend" appears to be suicide (religious conditioning against it maybe?), and even there the top nine are former Soviet bloc nations.

Don't see anyone at all in the US from where I sit, too far away. :D
But from that report:




And so on for literacy, gender equality, the only reversal of the "trend" appears to be suicide (religious conditioning against it maybe?), and even there the top nine are former Soviet bloc nations.

If 80% of the world is currently thesit, if I throw 100 stones from space, what are my chances statistically speaking that I will hit an atheist.

What a crappy interpretation!

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

Belief in God is naive at best, craven most often, and a sinister calculation at worst. Mere acceptance will do.

If the gods have determined about me and about the things which must happen to me, they have determined well, for it is not easy even to imagine a deity without forethought; and as to doing me harm, why should they have any desire towards that? For what advantage would result to them from this or to the whole, which is the special object of their providence? But if they have not determined about me individually, they have certainly determined about the whole at least, and the things which happen by way of sequence in this general arrangement I ought to accept with pleasure and to be content with them. But if they determine about nothing- which it is wicked to believe, or if we do believe it, let us neither sacrifice nor pray nor swear by them nor do anything else which we do as if the gods were present and lived with us- but if however the gods determine about none of the things which concern us, I am able to determine about myself, and I can inquire about that which is useful; and that is useful to every man which is conformable to his own constitution and nature. But my nature is rational and social; and my city and country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world. The things then which are useful to these cities are alone useful to me. Whatever happens to every man, this is for the interest of the universal: this might be sufficient. But further thou wilt observe this also as a general truth, if thou dost observe, that whatever is profitable to any man is profitable also to other men. But let the word profitable be taken here in the common sense as said of things of the middle kind, neither good nor bad.

Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations" (6.44) (http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.6.six.html)

If we act with the desire to do God's work, we act to please God. If we simply are, as best and honestly as we can be, God's way is fulfilled. I disagree with Aurelius that it is hard to imagine a deity without forethought, but perhaps a hair can be split between a monotheistic source of all and a deity. Humans invent their gods, and it is a testament to the depravity of human resignation that we should invent such gods as our largest religions describe:

Religion, the dominion of the human mind .... Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began.

Emma Goldman, "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html)

We humans can do better for ourselves and the Universe around us. That we do not is a forfeiture of our potential, our faculties, the very attributes that make us human.

i know two atheists that have the same problems i have.
Problems?
and strangely enough, they don't have your pompous attitude.
A pompous attitude? Thanks. I think I'm usually referred to as "overbearing" though. Lots of people have perceptual errors when they talk to me, I get used to it.

if I throw 100 stones from space, what are my chances statistically speaking that I will hit an atheist.
Well according to that report if you aim them at the more societally-healthy countries the odds look fairly good.

Problems?

yes.

A pompous attitude? Thanks. I think I'm usually referred to as "overbearing" though. Lots of people have perceptual errors when they talk to me, I get used to it.

why did you have to go and say something like that? now i like you...dammit.
:mad:

why did you have to go and say something like that? now i like you...dammit.
People get used to me... eventually (or move away :D )

Well according to that report if you aim them at the more societally-healthy countries the odds look fairly good.

What I'm trying to say is, what is the percentage of atheists in these countries?

Aargh, sorry. And I've closed the window with the report in. IIRC around 40% give or take. (I'm not skimming the damn thing again :D ).

But the US is the country with the education and standard of living comparable to the best. Do you see people leaving in droves or arriving?

The US is not excluded. Europe out-performs the US as far as social ills mentioned go... But not only that, they voted George W Bush into office. I can't think of a better example of one huge social ill for the world.

Sure I would like to live in America and actually I will likely be moving there in about a year because it does have a good economy and would be a pleasant place to live - Christian right withstanding.

The point is, how can you have a stable healthy society when religion is rampant? America stands out as the only one that made it to a developed nation, however by European standards, it suffers as a result of it's intolerable religiosity. This article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/correlation-of-christian-ethics-social-ills-knocks-advocates-fromknees-to-backside/2005/10/03/1128191653994.html) will explain it for you:

Edit: No, America is not the only developed nation with high religious beliefs, but you know what I mean... I'm working on no sleep.

seriously, the way it goes is, he gave us life. he made our world. we are suppose to thank him for it.

I didn't want him to give me life. Should I thank him that he made this hell?

I didn't want him to give me life. Should I thank him that he made this hell?

well, if you don't believe you will go to hell, since you don't believe in that sort of thing, why don't you take it away from yourself? :p
sorry. that was uncalled for. :o
btw, i read the article kenny, and i find i can't argue with it. i see the way my country is degrading and i see that a self-proclaimed "christian" is using some kind of "divine appointment" theory as his excuse to act on his stupidity. i know that religion has been the driving force behind practically every war that ever was and that religion will continue to be the basis of future wars. religion has become a set of cliques rather than the reason to come together and do good it was supposed to be, and all the cliques are hyped up on some testosterone driven pissing contest.
i suppose religion is like communism. it works great in theory but falls apart as soon as you put mere mortals in the position to have all that power. but religion in its most basic form, without all the trappings of politics and wealth (as stated in the article) on a personal level is a good thing. the ills of the world are not really caused by religion itself but by the people that would use it as a tool for their own ends.
:D

Lawdog,
So, we should believe them because they said so? That doesn't sound very credible to me. So, what stops everyone from believing what other religious organizations just because they said so?

Everything you said can be used by other religious organizations. What separates them? I bet you'll just go back to saying God endowed only the Roman Catholic Church. And I'll know what I'll say, other organizations probably say the same darn thing about their own god(s).

Your argument is based on someone saying so and everyone else is wrong. There is no logical discussion here. Just you using the old, "Because I/they/he/she said so."
[Renrue]

All christian groups were ones that broke off from the Catholic. Study of history will demonstrate this for you. As for pagans, buddhists, and the like, they are very interesting and one can learn much from them. They are not however of divine origin, though they might surely make that claim.

If you were deathly sick and presented with ten doctors all of whom claimed to experts and appointed by the authoritative organizations of medicine, how would you choose the best doctor? Would you choose the most experienced one in a major hospital with all the paperwork and degrees, or the young ones in a shack of a clinic?

If you were deathly sick and presented with ten doctors all of whom claimed to experts and appointed by the authoritative organizations of medicine, how would you choose the best doctor? Would you choose the most experienced one in a major hospital with all the paperwork and degrees, or the young ones in a shack of a clinic?That's the point, Lawdog, the ONLY degrees, and the ONLY paperwork (to continue your analogy) that the Catholic Church accepts are those that it has given to itself. Hardly credible, is it!

Belief in God is naive at best, craven most often, and a sinister calculation at worst. Mere acceptance will do.

[QUOTE]If the gods have determined about me and about the things which must happen to me, they have determined well, for it is not easy even to imagine a deity without forethought; and as to doing me harm, why should they have any desire towards that? For what advantage would result to them from this or to the whole, which is the special object of their providence? But if they have not determined about me individually, they have certainly determined about the whole at least, and the things which happen by way of sequence in this general arrangement I ought to accept with pleasure and to be content with them. But if they determine about nothing- which it is wicked to believe, or if we do believe it, let us neither sacrifice nor pray nor swear by them nor do anything else which we do as if the gods were present and lived with us- but if however the gods determine about none of the things which concern us, I am able to determine about myself, and I can inquire about that which is useful; and that is useful to every man which is conformable to his own constitution and nature. But my nature is rational and social; and my city and country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world. The things then which are useful to these cities are alone useful to me. Whatever happens to every man, this is for the interest of the universal: this might be sufficient. But further thou wilt observe this also as a general truth, if thou dost observe, that whatever is profitable to any man is profitable also to other men. But let the word profitable be taken here in the common sense as said of things of the middle kind, neither good nor bad.

Marcus Aurelius does not deny that the gods exist. He calls into question the usefulness of worshipping them. The very fact that he is considering and writing about these things identifies him to be a just man, though being human he made errors in his judgements. He was right to say that "the gods" that is, the demons, dont care.

Our faith is revealed by God, Marcus Aurelius' faith was of human origin. He did not have the advantage of revelation.

Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations" (6.44) (http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.6.six.html)

Humans invent their gods, and it is a testament to the depravity of human resignation that we should invent such gods as our largest religions describe: Yes you are correct, and many christians try to create a Jesus that suites them, but who never existed.

That is why I depend on the Church's definition of who Jesus was, so that I am certain that I am not creating my own gods. I recieve God as he revealed himself, I dont create my own Jesus using passages from the bible.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind .... Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began.
Emma Goldman, "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html)
This is rot. Why should you take her word for it? Religion lifts protestutes out of degradation, puts theives into paradise (like the theif on the cross), consoles the dying, prays for sick and gives hope to the imprisoned. You better toss that book.

That's the point, Lawdog, the ONLY degrees, and the ONLY paperwork (to continue your analogy) that the Catholic Church accepts are those that it has given to itself. Hardly credible, is it!

Then I suppose you will just have to die in your sickness....

Then I suppose you will just have to die in your sickness....As we all eventually do.
But in response, I will go with the medical people that have corroborative evidence to support their degrees and paperwork.
Unfortunately the Catholic Church has none.

What do you mean? Perhaps you need to take a trip to Rome and see the Vatican Archives.

It is interesting how much argumentation has come over Lawdog's opening post, which was logically irrefutable. Most who took issue with his statement appear to have neglected the part where he states that his God is entirely spiritual; by including this provision, any argument that takes a logical or physical basis is actually irrelevant because it addresses a completely different "God" from that initially mentioned. It is in fact impossible to argue against his position, only a position similar to but not exactly like it.

What Lawdog offers in his opening post is a perspective on his world view and a description of what he calls God. You can ask yourself whether such a thing actually exists, but I'm afraid should your answer be no, the most you can do is disagree. At least that's how I have interpreted it.

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so.



Stupidest thing I've heard in quite a while.

It is interesting how much argumentation has come over Lawdog's opening post, which was logically irrefutable. Most who took issue with his statement appear to have neglected the part where he states that his God is entirely spiritual; by including this provision, any argument that takes a logical or physical basis is actually irrelevant because it addresses a completely different "God" from that initially mentioned. It is in fact impossible to argue against his position, only a position similar to but not exactly like it.

What Lawdog offers in his opening post is a perspective on his world view and a description of what he calls God. You can ask yourself whether such a thing actually exists, but I'm afraid should your answer be no, the most you can do is disagree. At least that's how I have interpreted it.While I initially agreed with what you are saying - the RC "God" can NOT be "pure spirit" - as he created a son to walk on the Earth - and as such there must be some interraction between this "pure spirit" and the material world.

If the RC Church taught about a God that was logically consistent with "pure spirit" then what you say, and what Lawdog states in his opening post, would be irrefutable, if somewhat irrelevant - like saying "The Sarkus God exists because Sarkus says so - but he exists outside of this Universe and can never be known by any means other than through Sarkus."

Also - if this God is "pure spirit" - how can it interract with the supposed Divine Authority?
It is in this immaterial / material boundary of interraction that such a definition of God falls down - as logically a purely immaterial being can NOT interract with the material in any way.

It is true that God the Father, is pure spirit. The Son is incarnated in the flesh. Do not forget what you know about the Roman Catholic dogma of the Trinity.

Why do you say that immaterial cannot interact with material? The higher order governs the lower, interaction happens constantly. The very fact that you are right now thinking thoughts that no one else can see is proof of this activity.

Why do you say that immaterial cannot interact with material? The higher order governs the lower, interaction happens constantly. The very fact that you are right now thinking thoughts that no one else can see is proof of this activity.Please explain HOW they can interact.
And bear in mind that thoughts are entirely physical, as are emotions, as is pain etc, as is consciousness, as is personality - albeit that we use abstract words to describe the physical processes.

It is because thoughts (and all brain activity in general) are physical that we can "read" (at a redumentary level) the activity in the brain, and why we can stimulate parts of our body through direct manipulation of the brain (with electricity, for example).

But when you "read" activity in the brain, you are not experiencing that person's thoughts. The experience itself is relegated to an immaterial plane. "Mind over matter" is a common phrase; what it really says is that these immaterial experiences are the hierarchical parent, or the "cause," in a way, of the brain activity. In Roman Catholic cosmology, the spiritual realm is transcendent, i.e. it is beyond all other realms but still encompasses and permeates them. So a spiritual phenomenon could affect physical reality, but not vice-versa.

If I knew HOW they interacted, I would get one of those prizes in world science like einstein got.

nubianconcubine:
Delusion means to believe in spite of zero evidence. This fits you, lightgigantic and our friend Lawdog down to the ground. And no it's not funny, I am apalled.

“he gave us life.”


Evidence?

“he made our world.”


Evidence?

“we are suppose to thank him for it. ”


Evidence?

If you can not provide any evidence you are suffering from a superstitious delusion. That is inescapable.

Evidence? I see this word on here so many times. Just open your eyes, guys. Maybe it's beacuse I work in a creative field, but design is everywhere.

The grass is green, the sky is blue. Oddly pleasing to the eye. And what about sex? Bluntly put, a shaft that goes in a hole. Sounds like design to me.

Evidence? I see this word on here so many times. Just open your eyes, guys. Maybe it's beacuse I work in a creative field, but design is everywhere.

The grass is green, the sky is blue. Oddly pleasing to the eye. And what about sex? Bluntly put, a shaft that goes in a hole. Sounds like design to me.

Fair enough if you consider this apparent evidence for a 'God'. It has some philisophical merit... But it sounds to me rather naively confident. The perception of colour does not really indicate proof of of a living intelligent God either..

A penis going into a vagina... I feel you could have come up with a million better examples than this. The ingenuity of evolution doesn't imply direct intelligent creation since it was a process that took millions (billions even) of years worth of natural selection to reach the stage. If there is an intelligent creator... why not simply click his fingers to make such things suddenly appear, rather than billions of years of gradual complexity?

However, on TOP of the far-fetched idea that the universe was created by intelligence - You belong to an organised religion and have many additional far-fetched ideas attatched to this creator... which is what I really want to address. I mean, when arguing for the existence of of such a creator, you just argue that one exists... giving no mention to these other beliefs such as : belief that you will see lost loved ones again, belief in heaven, prayer, the soul, the truth of a book called The Bible... anything else?

i was going to stay out of this but i couldn't resist. so go easy on me kenny. :D
the bible says that god says "thou shalt have no gods before me" implying that there were in fact other gods but if we were going to have anything to do with him, we had to cut old ties. kind of like your new girlfriend wanting you to trash all your stuff from your old girlfriend.
the Bible...that, i'm afraid is something i've been speculating on. i saw a documentary on the way it came to be. would you believe that a group of priests from the catholic church put it together (my husband just told me it was the council of Nicea) and they didn't even put all the gospels (the books written by the apostles) in it! that was cause for alarm. it seemed that some of the gospels not included were important and some that weren't were left out because they weren't what the church considered conducive to their view of what the religion should be. :bugeye:
see, that's why i have what most would call a pagan approach to religion. i don't go to church because i don't want a mere mortal telling me what is good and what isn't (especially in light of the recent allegations against those priests). i was iffy about the bible before because men wrote it and have rewritten it several times since it's creation, and then left some of it out. so i just follow the golden rule. :cool:

i have an interesting theory on how evolution could be merged with biblical genesis. anyone remember reading somewhere in the bible about a day in heaven lasting 10K years on earth? alright, y'all be nice in your responses.

But when you "read" activity in the brain, you are not experiencing that person's thoughts.Only because we haven't yet got the equipment to read a person's thoughts precisely and interpret them. Every brain has different pathways / connections - which is why we all think differently.
So even if you had the ability to interpret/read one person's thoughts exactly, it would need complete recalibration for any one else.

The experience itself is relegated to an immaterial plane. "Mind over matter" is a common phrase; what it really says is that these immaterial experiences are the hierarchical parent, or the "cause," in a way, of the brain activity.Mumbo-jumbo horse-poo!
You are taking the phrase "mind over matter" utterly out of context.
The phrase means nothing more than we have the ability to do more physically than our usual conscious self tells us we can.


In Roman Catholic cosmology, the spiritual realm is transcendent, i.e. it is beyond all other realms but still encompasses and permeates them. So a spiritual phenomenon could affect physical reality, but not vice-versa.And you have utterly failed to explain HOW.
Also - how could you have A able to affect B and not have B able to affect A??? Logically inconsistent.

You are trying to gloss over questions, that you obviously can't answer, with nothing other than pseudo-scientific manure and by babbling religious drivel.

"We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. (The Church says that we can be certain).

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to knowledge about the physical reality.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God."

These arguments are fairly crude, and while they seem to reflect some of the Catchetical statements of the Catholic Church, I'm not sure if they would agree.

It is true that Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas or Jacques Maratain say we can know God exists. These arguments range from God being a necessary being to the necessary first cause of all that exists and so on.

Appealing to authority is unfortunately a bad way of constructing an argument. Many people need more convincing than to simply say something is true because the Church says so. The Catholic Church may appeal to its right of apostolic succession but again this is not going to hold water for skeptics, again for the good reason it is really a circular and hence fallacious argument.

A personal objection I have to your line is in one thread you seem to state conservative Protestant views and here you talk about Catholic theology in a fairly crude manner. These positions do not seem logically or spiritually compatible. In my experience Christians do not argue for two theological views from different churches, usually they analyse the merits of them but from their own viewpoint, be it Protestant, Catholic or other. Which view do you hold?

Easy. Take a look here and have a look at the countries with high amounts of atheism.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing.



Yes, but you never answered why this is characterized depending upong the strength of religious belief amongst the people searching for power.

This is a bad argument. Correlation does not mean causation. Things like high homicide and crime rates, high levels of rape and drug abuse, high levels of capital punishment, and high levels of poverty and income inequality exist in the U.S., the most Christian of Western countries. Does this mean Christianity is the cause of that crime, poverty, drug abuse and rape? No. Similarly, atheism is not the necessary cause of the problems and crime rates in other countries. Japan is mostly a non-Christian nation, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

This is a bad argument. Correlation does not mean causation. Things like high homicide and crime rates, high levels of rape and drug abuse, high levels of capital punishment, and high levels of poverty and income inequality exist in the U.S., the most Christian of Western countries. Does this mean Christianity is the cause of that crime, poverty, drug abuse and rape? No. Similarly, atheism is not the necessary cause of the problems and crime rates in other countries. Japan is mostly a non-Christian nation, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

um...he wasn't saying that atheism was the cause of those problems. he was saying that theism was. japan is mostly crime-free because it is a mostly non-christian nation whereas, the US which is very christian has many problems.
...just some FYI...

What about Vatican City?

Must be a hotbed of crime; can't get any more Catholic than the Pope, after all.

What about Vatican City?

Must be a hotbed of crime; can't get any more Catholic than the Pope, after all.

sam, you know that won't work on kenny. :p
he's too stubborn. :D

Lawpuppy, mentioned something about knowing the history of the church. I wonder if the puppy knows history at all.

The Christianising of Europe (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm)

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm)

And btw since you do promote this BS religion, you do support as well it's terrorism that your church has caused humanity. And furthermore is causing still suffering, death, wars.

Lawpuppy also mentioned the Vatican, guess what made Medicine Woman consider her religion? Yes lawpuppy visit the vatican see the wonders of it all the rich decadence of his holiness, in contrast to the poor pestilence that support them. :bugeye:

Godless

Marcus Aurelius does not deny that the gods exist. He calls into question the usefulness of worshipping them. The very fact that he is considering and writing about these things identifies him to be a just man, though being human he made errors in his judgements. He was right to say that "the gods" that is, the demons, dont care.

He had a more rational outlook on the notion of divinity than you do. Aurelius accepted that the gods existed. You, on the other hand--

Our faith is revealed by God, Marcus Aurelius' faith was of human origin. He did not have the advantage of revelation ....

....Yes you are correct, and many christians try to create a Jesus that suites them, but who never existed.

That is why I depend on the Church's definition of who Jesus was, so that I am certain that I am not creating my own gods. I recieve God as he revealed himself, I dont create my own Jesus using passages from the bible.

--believe in God. More specifically, you believe in a specific god defined by humans according to what suited them. The definition of God developed by the Roman Catholic church was not rational unto itself, but rational unto the establishment and preservation of a human body politic, e.g. the Church. One of the tragic comedies of the human endeavor is the triumph of "the Church". Perhaps it's a comedic tragedy. In the end, other approaches to God would have brought people closer to the idea they chased after, but would have hamstrung the political influence of "the Church" and its human leaders who fashioned their God according to their desires.

This is rot. Why should you take her word for it?

Why take any human's word for anything? Oh, right: Goldman's summation is reflected in history. Including that "Church" of yours, a great source of blood and gloom and tears.

Religion lifts protestutes out of degradation, puts theives into paradise (like the theif on the cross), consoles the dying, prays for sick and gives hope to the imprisoned.

Nothing like salvation that you can find in the drawer in any hourly-rate motel, eh?

Only because we haven't yet got the equipment to read a person's thoughts precisely and interpret them. Every brain has different pathways / connections - which is why we all think differently.
So even if you had the ability to interpret/read one person's thoughts exactly, it would need complete recalibration for any one else.
Even if you could correctly interpret every brain's activities, you would have data, not the same experiences as that person.

Mumbo-jumbo horse-poo!
You are taking the phrase "mind over matter" utterly out of context.
The phrase means nothing more than we have the ability to do more physically than our usual conscious self tells us we can.
Actually, I was using it to illustrate the concept of dualism.

And you have utterly failed to explain HOW.
Also - how could you have A able to affect B and not have B able to affect A??? Logically inconsistent.
Is the operation of a one-way valve also logically inconsistent?

Maybe you find one-way relationships a little counterintuitive, but they are not at all logically inconsistent.

You are trying to gloss over questions, that you obviously can't answer, with nothing other than pseudo-scientific manure and by babbling religious drivel.
You are reading too far into my post. First, I never said that these were my personal views. Second, I never once mentioned science. I did mention religion (since that is the topic of discussion), but my drivel was philosophical, not religious.

I have attempted to explain the basis of the thinking behind Catholic (and most Western) philosophy. It is one way to interpret the human experience, not a testable theory posited as scientific fact. And similar to Lawdog's first post, nothing I said was really up for argument; all the statements I made were just ground rules for a system. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you responded with such hostility, even if this is Sciforums.

What about Vatican City?

Must be a hotbed of crime; can't get any more Catholic than the Pope, after all.

The Vatican is brimming with security. So much for faith!

The Vatican is brimming with security. So much for faith!

When I went to see St. Peter's, Rome, they refused to let me in, appalled by the sight of my bare feet.

It made me wonder if they'd let Jesus in.

--- Ron.

Even if you could correctly interpret every brain's activities, you would have data, not the same experiences as that person.Of course not - as we are all unique. But uniqueness does not imply something other than uniqueness.

Is the operation of a one-way valve also logically inconsistent?False analogy - a one way valve has reactions of A on B AND B on A - where there is a Force there is a Reaction. The fact that water / fluid / electricity only flows one way is irrelevant. If the flow tried to go the other way it would still act on the valve but be unable to overcome the resistance.
All physical.

So, please, again, tell me how you can have A able to interact with B but not allow B to interact with A?

Maybe you find one-way relationships a little counterintuitive, but they are not at all logically inconsistent.So please enlighten me as to where they are and how they work, and how they are not logically inconsistent.

...but my drivel was philosophical, not religious.:D
My apologies for confusing the flavour of the drivel. :p

I have attempted to explain the basis of the thinking behind Catholic (and most Western) philosophy. It is one way to interpret the human experience, not a testable theory posited as scientific fact. And similar to Lawdog's first post, nothing I said was really up for argument; all the statements I made were just ground rules for a system. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you responded with such hostility, even if this is Sciforums.Perhaps you caught me at an inopportune moment at work - so for any perceived hostility I am truly sorry.

Ground-rules for a system are fine, but without evidence to support those rules they are nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

I could posit any number of logically consistent "Gods" - very much along the line of Deism - but without evidence to support it... well... it's as valuable and just as useless as everything else in the similar position.

The point about Lawdog's posited deity is the interraction with the material plane without demonstrating how this is logically possible - and is thus a flaw in the logic of the whole.

False analogy - a one way valve has reactions of A on B AND B on A - where there is a Force there is a Reaction. The fact that water / fluid / electricity only flows one way is irrelevant. If the flow tried to go the other way it would still act on the valve but be unable to overcome the resistance.
All physical.
The valve would be neither B nor A, but a junction between them. Water can flow from point A on one side of the valve to point B, but not back from B to A. If this is too physical an example for you, consider the arrow of time. The past affects the present, but the present does not affect the past. Such asymmetrical relationships do exist in nature, but even that is not a prerequisite for logical consistency.

Think of the statement "A implies B, but B does not imply A." A and B can be bits in the memory of a computer. This computer can be programmed to obey the statement "if A==1 then let B=1." If initially A=0 and B=0, then when the program finishes they will still both be set to 0. If A=1 and B=0, then B will also be set to 1. If A=0 and B=1, however, A will not also be set to 1; B does not affect A.

It's the same as saying that in the statement, "I am hungry, therefore I eat," the converse is not also true.

Ground-rules for a system are fine, but without evidence to support those rules they are nothing more than an intellectual exercise.
Maybe it is nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

whoa. :eek:
who are you?

If this is too physical an example for you, consider the arrow of time. The past affects the present, but the present does not affect the past.Time is not something that acts or reacts. Time is the prerequisite medium for allowing such reactions to occur in the first instance. As such it is an invalid example. Without time we have no action/reaction - but time itself neither reacts nor reacts. To think otherwise is to bestow characteristics to time that it just doesn't have.

Such asymmetrical relationships do exist in natureThere might well be, but I know of none, and I am not convinced by either example yet given.

Think of the statement "A implies B, but B does not imply A." A and B can be bits in the memory of a computer. This computer can be programmed to obey the statement "if A==1 then let B=1." If initially A=0 and B=0, then when the program finishes they will still both be set to 0. If A=1 and B=0, then B will also be set to 1. If A=0 and B=1, however, A will not also be set to 1; B does not affect A.In this example A and B are never interacting.
A and B are independently interacting with the central processor - that observes both A and B and reacts.
So A and C interact. C and B interact. You only assume that A and B are actually interacting when they actually don't.
So again - false analogy. :p


Maybe it is nothing more than an intellectual exercise.But an interesting one, nonetheless. :)

Time is not something that acts or reacts. Time is the prerequisite medium for allowing such reactions to occur in the first instance. As such it is an invalid example. Without time we have no action/reaction - but time itself neither reacts nor reacts. To think otherwise is to bestow characteristics to time that it just doesn't have.
I obviously wasn't talking about time itself. Events in the past affect events in the present, and not vice-versa.

In this example A and B are never interacting.
A and B are independently interacting with the central processor - that observes both A and B and reacts.
So A and C interact. C and B interact. You only assume that A and B are actually interacting when they actually don't.
So again - false analogy. :p
No, the computer program is the means by which A affects B. Neither A nor B are "aware" that there is either a CPU or a program; both are abstracted from the memory space, which is for our purposes the point of input and output. By your logic, I do not type this message, but my keyboard/BIOS/operating system/web browser/PHP script/database does. While it may be true that my keyboard affects the data sent to Sciforums as much as I do, I alone initiate the change that leads to the posting of this message. In the same fashion, the manipulation of A from 0 to 1 is what changes the program's output. Our program cannot change this by itself.

But an interesting one, nonetheless. :)
I agree!

I once was a computer programmer, but my education was civil engineer. It was obvious then, the method for physics-based engineering could not all match when playing with logic; several things logically exists, could not always be represented by physical representatives. Thus they could not interact physically.

A and B affectible each other when both exist physically, could trigger a collision.
Your dream can effect your penis to make fountain in your pants, not vice versa.

I once was a computer programmer, but my education was civil engineer. It was obvious then, the method for physics-based engineering could not all match when playing with logic; several things logically exists, could not always be represented by physical representatives. Thus they could not interact physically.

A and B affectible each other when both exist physically, could trigger a collision.
Your dream can effect your penis to make fountain in your pants, not vice versa.why do you think not.
so what your saying, is your out with you girl shes necking with you, all night and she wont go to third base you go to bed and have a wet dream what caused the dream was it, the night with your girl, and your frustrated penis or did you just dream of sex without any provocation.

why do you think not.
so what your saying, is your out with you girl shes necking with you, all night and she wont go to third base you go to bed and have a wet dream what caused the dream was it, the night with your girl, and your frustrated penis or did you just dream of sex without any provocation.

I did have dream without any previous provocation. Just happened that way.
And in many cases I had provocation without real action happened, the dream didn't come.

No, the computer program is the means by which A affects B. Neither A nor B are "aware" that there is either a CPU or a program; both are abstracted from the memory space, which is for our purposes the point of input and output. By your logic, I do not type this message, but my keyboard/BIOS/operating system/web browser/PHP script/database does. While it may be true that my keyboard affects the data sent to Sciforums as much as I do, I alone initiate the change that leads to the posting of this message. In the same fashion, the manipulation of A from 0 to 1 is what changes the program's output. Our program cannot change this by itself.I am not talking about cause and effect - in which one item affects another but not the reverese - I am talking about the interaction between A and B - and if A affects B then B affects A. There must be direct interaction in your examples or else we are not talking of the same thing.

Yes, I could start a chain and say A affects B, which affects C, which affects D - and come to the conclusion that A has affected Z - all through cause and effect (which yes, does require the passage of time).

But this is not the same as saying A interacts with Z.

Whatever chain of cause/effect you care to pick there will be action/reaction between each link - and if you don't see it then you need to look at the smaller links.

You are limiting your world in the scope of newton's 3rd law of mechanics, while this universe only applying that law in few parts of it. Start localizing all prerequisites set where the law could be applied, you would see many examples beyond that set,those of one way interaction.

Your eyes interact with everything before them, yet your eyes can do nothing to give effect to those source of shadows fall behind your cornea.

he's got a point. :D

or she. :p

Your eyes interact with everything before them,
Your eyes are receptors, not emitters. Therefore why should they have an effect on anything? The action is the photon hitting the rods and cones in the eye, the reaction is the transmission of impulses to the brain (simply put).

I did have dream without any previous provocation. Just happened that way.
And in many cases I had provocation without real action happened, the dream didn't come.you dream every night of you life, it's just you dont always remember them, the reason we all dream, is due to, the excesses of the day, all dreams have some kind of provocation, if we did not dream we'd go mad.

Your eyes are receptors, not emitters. Therefore why should they have an effect on anything? The action is the photon hitting the rods and cones in the eye, the reaction is the transmission of impulses to the brain (simply put).

exactly, those are one way processes. not vice versa.

You are limiting your world in the scope of newton's 3rd law of mechanics, while this universe only applying that law in few parts of it. Start localizing all prerequisites set where the law could be applied, you would see many examples beyond that set,those of one way interaction.

Your eyes interact with everything before them, yet your eyes can do nothing to give effect to those source of shadows fall behind your cornea.
Your eyes do NOT "interact with everything before them".
Your retina reacts with the visible-spectrum EM waves that objects throw off.
The photons hit the retina and lose momentum - action / reaction.
Your retina gains momentum - and the impact also sparks a biological reaction that the brain interprets as part of the "vision".

Your examples are fallacious in that you can choose any 2 objects that appear to interact in only one direction - and yet you conveniently overlook the chain of interaction that leads to your conclusion.
Look more closely and you will see an action/reaction relationship.

If you can, please give me an example of two things that actually INTERACT in only one direction - not through a chain of other interactions - but two things that directly interact - or where one thing directly acts on another with no reaction the other way.

before i say anything i want to know one thing...
does anyone believe in luck?

i believe everything happens for a reason, so if I lose a game and this something happens because of that, i believed it was meant to happen, but if you call that bad luck, then yes i do. if luck just means something good or bad happens randomly, then no.

baum,

But when you "read" activity in the brain, you are not experiencing that person's thoughts. The experience itself is relegated to an immaterial plane. "Mind over matter" is a common phrase; what it really says is that these immaterial experiences are the hierarchical parent, or the "cause," in a way, of the brain activity. In Roman Catholic cosmology, the spiritual realm is transcendent, i.e. it is beyond all other realms but still encompasses and permeates them. So a spiritual phenomenon could affect physical reality, but not vice-versa. LOL - gibberish. The mind is not immaterial it is the label we give to the result of physical neural network activity

provita,

i believe everything happens for a reason,Why?

The photons hit the retina and lose momentum - action / reaction.


Ok, I can accept that.
We are talking in the scope where physical collision takes place. Up to photonic level, explanation will be logically accepted.

Quantum physics is one subject I hardly can comprehend; have never been able to consider they are true but I have to live with it. It’s a belief for me; for it is commonly used as acceptable knowledge among scientists who “agreed upon” them. There is no way I cannot accept it; by these preconditions : (1*) accepted as a complete set of logical explanation; (2*) one can not provide better alternative explanation.

But accepting it as a truth still reserves some skeptical thought.

At photonic level, effects can be explained, but not sensible, the real physical interactions never been presented sensiblically for us to sense them. They are sets of logically constituted explanation, which then constitutes our perception.

Belief is a prerequisite to comprehend the whole theory. Once passed the belief phase, then it is relatively smoother to comprehend the knowledge, because one then able to constitute a complete set of inclusive logic. Skeptically speaking, it could be explained in other way, once the prerequisites in which we now are believing, invented differently.

That explains the mythology, which human believed that Poseidon who waved tsunami in the ocean, etc. In search of explanation (knowledge), human constituted set of logic they could accept, then respectively responded to that knowledge in daily lives. It was reasonable then, when they constituted this logic at their time : lightning comes from Zeus; inspite of making Zeus angry, their action was to persuade Zeus so the lightning didn’t ruin their properties. Since two preconditions applied (see point (1*) and (2*) above), they had to live with it. It was obvious then, later inventions showed that the prerequisites of the logic sets were not valid. The logic should be abandoned. At our era of technological advance, we now call them deitiest, fairiest, etc.

Now let’s get back to the triggering point where this action reaction issue started. Spiritual experience. Evidence of existence.

I know, this doesn’t provide any evidence to the existence of spiritual experience. But then again, back to the old song, perception comes from certain set of logic, which besides all evidence provided, prerequisitedly constituted by certain beliefs (at which we have not yet able to provide sensible evidence), which then make the set of logic become completely inclusive, at our time.

My point, a complete set of inclusive logic, still requires certain beliefs for the lack of sensible evidence.

If we believe in the extrapolating universe, at some point maybe all the beliefs will be proven (or disproven) by evidence, and no one knows if evidence will be coming before or after doomsday, or judgement day. Ooopps.. what the hell are those days :rolleyes: Some live with the beliefs, some don’t, some just skeptical.

We never know God exists or not, only our belief/disbelief/skeptical thought tells us about It. In addition to belief, different sets of logic could be constituted for different persons for their own satisfied explanation, but of course, will always be lacking of sensible evidence. Then it could not be decided which ones are having logical fallacies. As for now, spiritual experience could not be presented as sensible evidence.

Belief is a prerequisite to comprehend the whole theory. This is I think where we differ...

There is no belief required to comprehend a theory.
There is the acceptance of assumption.
And that acceptance should continue as long as the theory holds.
When the theory no longer holds we should look for new theories to explain it.

A belief, any belief without evidence, is merely a smoothing over of gaps in understanding.
Where one chooses to insert a belief, another person is happy to say "I don't know."

Using this metaphor, a belief in God is just another layer of Polyfila that smooths over cracks - albeit sizeable ones - in our understanding of our selves.


My point, a complete set of inclusive logic, still requires certain beliefs for the lack of sensible evidence.See comment above - it merely requires acceptance of assumptions - not belief.
We don't KNOW that the logic or the Laws of Physics that hold in one part of our Universe holds elsewhere/everywhere - but we haven't as yet come across any evidence to the contrary.



And so I return to the flaw in Lawdog's opening post - the supposed interaction between the immaterial (e.g. the spirit) and the material (e.g. us), and the lack of evidence, and more importantly - the lack of a hypothetical mechanism - to allow such to happen.

:)

baum,

LOL - gibberish. The mind is not immaterial it is the label we give to the result of physical neural network activity
This is a belief based on your initial assumptions. If you are a materialist, you are bound to believe that consciousness is just an emergent property of the physical brain. However, you could just as rationally argue as an 'idealist' that the only thing that exists is our mind, and that the apparent universe is just a product of that mind.

There are a number of problems with the materialist belief, not least the "irreducibility" of consciousness: How can the ontologicaly objective become ontologically subjective? There seems to be an unbridgable chasm between objective phenomena (e.g. brain events) and the nature of our qualitative experiences of them. Also, as discussed peviously, the problem of agency. Hence consciousness has been labelled "the hard problem".

I believe that consciousness is a fundamental thing, not reducible to objective physical phenomena. Something to think on would be:

1) Does a universe exist if no-one will ever be aware of it?
2) Does consciousness exist if there is nothing to be conscious of?

In this way, I believe the two are inextricably linked, as part of the same dialectic. Neither can be said to exist without the other, nor explained in terms of the other.

There is then maybe the problem lies. The incapability of constituting assumption (to be generally accepted), and hypothetical mechanism to explain those spiritual events / symptoms.

I saw things happened, several times : people act not within their characters (sounds, behaviour, capabilities, memory). They became someone else, don't know their relatives/friends, have extraordinary power to do things unthinkable for normal people to do. Bicameral mind cannot explain how suddenly they could peel a coconut by teeth without any hurt, and broke several hard materials easily as if they had been trained kungfu for ten year.

"Something" act upon them, and they cannot do anything to be directly dealing with this acting thing. And they cannot control themselves up to photonic level.

I saw things happened, several times : people act not within their characters (sounds, behaviour, capabilities, memory). They became someone else, don't know their relatives/friends, have extraordinary power to do things unthinkable for normal people to do. Bicameral mind cannot explain how suddenly they could peel a coconut by teeth without any hurt, and broke several hard materials easily as if they had been trained kungfu for ten year.

"Something" act upon them, and they cannot do anything to be directly dealing with this acting thing. And they cannot control themselves up to photonic level.With any example the question of "how" must of course be answered. And in some respects current investigative techniques and equipment aren't up to the task.
But an unanswered question is not evidence of anything other than merely the inability to answer it.

This is a belief based on your initial assumptions. If you are a materialist, you are bound to believe that consciousness is just an emergent property of the physical brain. However, you could just as rationally argue as an 'idealist' that the only thing that exists is our mind, and that the apparent universe is just a product of that mind.It is not a belief but the assumption / theory that has yet to be disproved through contrary evidence.

How can the ontologicaly objective become ontologically subjective?In English, if you please? :D

There seems to be an unbridgable chasm between objective phenomena (e.g. brain events) and the nature of our qualitative experiences of them.No there isn't - there is just a current lack of understanding of the processes. The unique nature of the qualitative experience is due to the uniqueness of every brain.

1) Does a universe exist if no-one will ever be aware of it?
2) Does consciousness exist if there is nothing to be conscious of?1) Yes - and current evidence indicates that there was a universe a long time prior to the arrival of any life whatsoever.
2) Consciousness, the way I see it, requires some form of sensory input. If there is absolutely no input (either from internal or external sources), there is no consciousness, just instinct.
(It's not something I've ever thought of before, so please excuse me if my thoughts on this change over the course of any discussion.)
:)

God exists! it says so in the bible and theres proof because they found noahs ark.

God exists! it says so in the bible and theres proof because they found noahs ark.

did they? last i heard they found wood that was dated waaaaay after the period noah's ark was supposed to have landed. i heard recently that they found petrified wood high in the mountains but not on mt. ararat.

I'll translate his moronic rambling, free of charge:
:p
We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. (The Church says that we can be certain).
Or:
I was brainwashed as a kid into believing this shit, and I'm scared of anything that even resembles logical thinking.

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.
Or:
We can't prove a damn thing. So we'll just keep babbling and making ourselves look stupid.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.
Or:
This guy with a big hat says its true, so it must be true because he said it was. I mean, come on, look at his hat!

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
Or:
I think god exists, and you're all wrong because I think I'm right!

However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.
Or:
Hey, stop proving me wrong! It makes me sad and even more delusional.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to knowledge about the physical reality.
Or:
Didn't you hear what I said? Whaaah! Whhaaah!

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.
Or:
I still believe in impossible crap that cannot be proven! Whaaah! Whaaah!

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. (The Church says that we can be certain).

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to knowledge about the physical reality.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

If that's the case then, what so-called 'Church' are you referring too? There are so many you know. The Church telephone number or email address would be appreciated.:D

www.vatican.va is the website for the Vatican, incase thats helpful for the RCC

did they? last i heard they found wood that was dated waaaaay after the period noah's ark was supposed to have landed. i heard recently that they found petrified wood high in the mountains but not on mt. ararat.

How do you know?
When god created the earth, the people, the animals and the trees 3000 years ago he didn't make it so you could tell. YOU ARE BEING BRAINWASHED!
Also it's not sure that the bible says noahs ark ended up on mount ararat it says it could have ended up high in the mountains if you read it right.
God loves all!

nubianconcubine:

Delusion means to believe in spite of zero evidence. This fits you, lightgigantic and our friend Lawdog down to the ground. And no it's not funny, I am apalled.



Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?

If you can not provide any evidence you are suffering from a superstitious delusion. That is inescapable.


There is no physical evidence that God did all those things. As we all know, you don't believe in god and that's fine. Maybe you could give us a "rational" explaination how the world came to exist. now when i say "a rational explaination" i mean give us evidence with odds like 3-1 of it happening. but i'll make it easy for ya, give us evidence with odds in the range of 100-1. now 100-1 are pretty irrational odds but they are much more rational then the 150-200 million to 1 that it really is. The reason i'm asking u for this is because all i've been hearing is that the best explaination science has (putting into consideration the EXTRODINARYY odds) of it happening is "fluke" or "miracle".

Believing that this world came into existence all by itself (with no help of any kind) dispite the odds against it, takes as much "faith" as is does to believe that a surpreme being made it.

But thats just my opinion.

Rickie: It's a good thing that it's just your opinion, because obviously your strength is not in the field of probability.

You are correct in stating that the probabilities of Earth evolving to even a pre-intelligencia state are very unlikely. But you underestimate the timespan. Did you ever hear of the (para)phrase "Given infinite time, a number of monkeys with a number of typewriters will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare"? Admittedly an over-simplified and ridiculous metaphorical parallel of my point...

The amount of time that has passed in Earth's existence has seen enough permutations of chemical, cellular and energetic reactions that give MUCH more credence to evolution than you would like to portray.

Added to which, and I'm sure it's stated before so I won't go into detail, enough evidence exists to bolster the theory of evolution.

Faith is not a prerequisite of believing evolution. Logical thinking is.

Rickie: It's a good thing that it's just your opinion, because obviously your strength is not in the field of probability.

You are correct in stating that the probabilities of Earth evolving to even a pre-intelligencia state are very unlikely. But you underestimate the timespan. Did you ever hear of the (para)phrase "Given infinite time, a number of monkeys with a number of typewriters will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare"? Admittedly an over-simplified and ridiculous metaphorical parallel of my point...

The amount of time that has passed in Earth's existence has seen enough permutations of chemical, cellular and energetic reactions that give MUCH more credence to evolution than you would like to portray.

Added to which, and I'm sure it's stated before so I won't go into detail, enough evidence exists to bolster the theory of evolution.

Faith is not a prerequisite of believing evolution. Logical thinking is.
He is right, the chances of life happening by accident is about 1-1000, far too much to be by chance, there had to be an intelligent designer in the 3000 years of earths existence. Is that proof enough for you? I think you will have no argument left!

He is right, the chances of life happening by accident is about 1-1000, far too much to be by chance, there had to be an intelligent designer in the 3000 years of earths existence. Is that proof enough for you? I think you will have no argument left!


Why is it you think that happenstance despite high odds is proof of an intelligent designer? An event happening despite high odds against it merely lends to various probability theories surrounding that event. That's all.

And who told you the earth is 3000 years old? Are you 3033 years old?

He is right, the chances of life happening by accident is about 1-1000, far too much to be by chance, there had to be an intelligent designer in the 3000 years of earths existence. Is that proof enough for you? I think you will have no argument left!

Ain't a pitty fools like these keep showing up here, spewing their bs so that rational people can ridicule the hell of out of them. :D

Try to use your brain for an instance. The odds of an intelligent designer is apx. billion to one, as for evidence of desing, there's is none. Desing requires order, there's no order in the universe. Quite the opposite is what is happening. However since our minds prespectively requires order in order to comprehend things, it is order that we observe. But the opposite is factually what is accuring.

It is not by desing, the earth gets bonbarded by astroids, if that's the case, the designer is an evil bastard, that likes to create and destroy life at whim.

It's not by design, that volcanos erupt periodically, destroying everything on it's path, and killing millions of innocent creatures including humans.

Here's a little bit of light reading for you.

The Chaotic Universe (http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4374.html)

Chaos frees the Universe (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/freeuni.html#)

Hopefully that will be enough, but as you can see from ref's. The universe is not in "order" the "intellegent designer" is unsurportable theory, since I've shown you that there's no order to this universe, but chaos.

Godless

Ain't a pitty fools like these keep showing up here, spewing their bs so that rational people can ridicule the hell of out of them. :D

Try to use your brain for an instance. yada yada etc etc

Godless
The joke's on you! He was being sarcastic.

Sarcasm, through this medium is no joke. I'ts quite hard to spot. I merely judged him by his/her avatar ;)

The joke's on you! He was being sarcastic.
:D :D

How do you know?
When god created the earth, the people, the animals and the trees 3000 years ago he didn't make it so you could tell. YOU ARE BEING BRAINWASHED!
Also it's not sure that the bible says noahs ark ended up on mount ararat it says it could have ended up high in the mountains if you read it right.
God loves all!

:bugeye:
hey, guy. i'm on your side. all i said was that carbon-dating made it impossible that the wood they found came from the era of the ark much less the ark itself. i believe in god too. but if someone puts facts in my face, they can't be denied.
don't get excited, kenny. i still believe in god despite lack of evidence. however, the ark's location is :D a different story.

My God, Why Did U Create Such Morons???!?!!!?!

EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE

THE BIG BANG DOES NOT EITHER

NOR THE PROVEN FACT THAT THE WORLD IS 4.4 BILLION YEARS OLD (thats by memory, might be wrong)

GET OVER URSELVES AND GET A BRAIN

My God, Why Did U Create Such Morons???!?!!!?!


EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE

THE BIG BANG DOES NOT EITHER

NOR THE PROVEN FACT THAT THE WORLD IS 4.4 BILLION YEARS OLD (thats by memory, might be wrong)

GET OVER URSELVES AND GET A BRAIN
nONE of that has been proven it's just a guess, you are being brainwashed to believe you cant be wrong!
God is the only truth!

Rickie: It's a good thing that it's just your opinion, because obviously your strength is not in the field of probability.

You are correct in stating that the probabilities of Earth evolving to even a pre-intelligencia state are very unlikely. But you underestimate the timespan. Did you ever hear of the (para)phrase "Given infinite time, a number of monkeys with a number of typewriters will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare"? Admittedly an over-simplified and ridiculous metaphorical parallel of my point...

The amount of time that has passed in Earth's existence has seen enough permutations of chemical, cellular and energetic reactions that give MUCH more credence to evolution than you would like to portray.

Added to which, and