Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism

Hey,

well OK,

I give up!

but just a sec,

that guy-gal-it-UFO-thing-person,
Bless Their Heart,...

seems to really like RUSH!!!

So they are OK in my book!

See...

But I will certainly be praying for them!!!

Must hold ...on!!! -_O
He obviously needs far more then prayer:D...medical treatment is a better option.
 
Yes. Yes, they have been deceived. It's no one's fault but their own.

Multiple Choice...

Q?

In your own opinion, are you...

1. Arrogant?
2. All knowing?
3. Intolerant?
4. Opinionated?
5. Feeling Threatened
6. Judgemental?
7. Compassionate
8. All of the Above?
9. None of the Above?

There may be more than one correct answer.
Your answer(s) will help me understand and weigh your comments better.

I can make my own guesses but I will probably be wrong.

I have seen you be Compassionate, so number 7 should definitely make it on the list.

Calling people you disagree with Liars?

I know you are better than this!!!

Are you...?

10. Injured Emotionally?
11. Injured Physically?
12. Emotionally Crushed?
13. Feeling Judged?
14. -Your Choice Here-?
 
Last edited:
Multiple Choice...

Q?

In your own opinion, are you...

1. Arrogant?
2. All knowing?
3. Intolerant?
4. Opinionated?
5. Feeling Threatened
6. Judgemental?
7. Compassionate
8. All of the Above?
9. None of the Above?

There may be more than one correct answer.
Your answer(s) will help me understand and weigh your comments better.

I can make my own guesses but I will probably be wrong.

I have seen you be Compassionate, so number 7 should definitely make it on the list.

Calling people you disagree with Liars?

I know you are better than this!!!

Are you...?

10. Injured Emotionally?
11. Injured Physically?
12. Emotionally Crushed?
13. Feeling Judged?
14. -Your Choice Here-?
How does any of those "qualities"line up with the apparent arrogance of creationists/believers/IDers that claim with utmost certainty of some magic deity or other?
I mean science and most of us here that appreciate that discipline, all know that science does not have all the answers. But you and the two other crusaders that frequent here claim otherwise.
And of course lying...Jan was lying at every opportunity...redefining words, being obtuse, denying fact. Have you done any of that?
 
That was amilenitrate back in the day...you would dip a cigarette in it and draw...you did not see god but you were sure he was there...that's what you talking about?
How is it you fail to comment on the issues I raise..too difficult? Too disturbing?
Too truthful that you just ignore.
Where is the paper? Still looking no doubt.
Have you given consideration as to why some of the world do not like Christians and what behaviour of Christians has brought this situation about.
What have you found out?
Alex

“RUSH” is a phenomenal Rock Band.

Alex,

Why is it that Profiling is wrong?

But Profiling all Christians with the same brush is somehow right?

Is Profiling all Atheists wrong or right?

If you are interested in the topic of Life after Death I am sure you can find all of the available Scientific Papers on it yourself, and make your own choice.

You are a brilliant person, you don’t need me!

And I don’t want to push it on you.
 
How does any of those "qualities"line up with the apparent arrogance of creationists/believers/IDers that claim with utmost certainty of some magic deity or other?
I mean science and most of us here that appreciate that discipline, all know that science does not have all the answers. But you and the two other crusaders that frequent here claim otherwise.
And of course lying...Jan was lying at every opportunity...redefining words, being obtuse, denying fact. Have you done any of that?

They can equally apply to Christians!
Perhaps more so!

Disagreeing over things that millions of people divide over is not automatically lying.

I don’t accuse you of lying.
 
But Profiling all Christians with the same brush is somehow right?
That is a different issue...my question merely points out that one need to ask why...why have the persecutors in any specific instant acted so badly...usually folk just don't wake up and select someone to attack for no reason.
It is for you to ask really rather than see only one side of a conflict...
As to the after life thing I have looked into what is out there in depth...I did not find anything at all interesting and none of it was science as the folk involved clearly were looking to support their belief rather than be impartial...frankly any research is a waste of time as believers believe it and I know if there were a truck load of papers saying it is not happening, it's just a reaction the brain has ...the believers would ignore the science and still believe in the same way they for the most part ignore all the material on evolution...


However how difficult is it for you to produce just one paper so we can work on it?
Given I made the request I could not complain that you are pushing it down my throat.
You have claimed there is scientific support all I ask is for one paper ... please produce it and avoid someone calling your claim a lie.

You are a brilliant person,
You are probably thinking about someone else but if you are not mistaken please realise you have made an unsupported claim...so I call upon you to present evidence in support of your claim a page or two at least...

you don’t need me!
Well I do need you to present a credible scientific paper because I have never found one...I followed many conversations on this on the brilliant show Athiest Experience...and I looked for stuff on it etc but there seems no science as you claim..so I do need you to produce a science paper in line with your claim.

Will you? Can you? Just remember there is already a line forming of folk ready to call you names.

Have a great day. You sound like a nice person and deserve getting rescued from the cult.

Alex
 
I went looking but just like last time did not find anything helpful.
One guy in his near death experience met Jesus but there was no paper..
Alex
 
I don’t know Alex.

I think it was the scientist on the far left in the John Cleese video that claimed that there are Peer Reviewed Papers.

I will take a look and see if I can find anything of value out there in Peer Review Land.

I thought that many of the claims made in the video were being made by PHD level scientists.

Perhaps that doesn’t mean much anymore, if it ever did?

Oh and about being called names...

Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.

You guys don’t seem to be able to prove all of your claims, so why should I?

So there!

Take Dat!
:)
 
Last edited:
But Profiling all Christians with the same brush is somehow right?

I have never done that like you and the other two stooges.
My wife as I have often relayed is a genuine true christian, who does her thing, tolerates me and my beliefs, and sees no need to preach, and push their stuff on science forums, as I have discussed with you before, without any satisfactory answer.
Is Profiling all Atheists wrong or right?
Wrong.
If you are interested in the topic of Life after Death I am sure you can find all of the available Scientific Papers on it yourself, and make your own choice.

You are a brilliant person, you don’t need me!

And I don’t want to push it on you.
Great!!!Then prove you are telling the truth, discuss your religion, your bible, and quite trying to cheapen and deride science in comparison. That's why people object to you sort, because in your derision, you always lie.
 
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.
My mother always told me that and I agree ..so good for you.
You guys don’t seem to be able to prove all of your claims,
Maybe...but please put up a claim wherein it seems we are not able to prove our claims so we can at least make some excuses and demonstrate we are all really not so different.
It boils down to one thing really the claim that JC was the Son of God has not been proven, or that the resurrection is fact or that Mosses was a real person, or that Johna lived in a whale and was vommitted up ok, or that the biblical flood occurred...although it does seem there could be some basis to a flood event, but not total, around the Younger Dryas event..which perhaps was taken up by the Sumerians and later adopted into the bible, which seems to be drawn on possibly three different authors.
It just seems extrodinary that you I expect will agree that thousands of gods were invented but that yours somehow was not.
That should be difficult to reconcile don't you think.
Anyways what was the point you were trying to make with your OP?
May I ask ..do you see the Adam and Eve story as true or merely an anology?
Do you believe there was a flood as described in the bible and two ( sometimes more) animals were saved and that the human race was cut down to only eight people?
I promise I won't tell you are wrong as I am sincerely interested to know if you take the bible literally.
And have you put together the evidence to support your claim that I am a brilliant person I want to know as it could help me manage my terrible inferiority complex.
And do you think your god should play a more active roll in our world by heading off terrible disasters and the resulting human suffering..you know stop these damn Earth quakes, the resulting tsunami...maybe stop wars, cruelty to animals and people and particularly domestic violence...
Can you appreciate why I find it impossible to think for one moment anything that godism suggests is true.
If we need a moral compass could we not just follow budah teachings?
Do you believe all the other gods are inventions?
Anyways what was your point you were trying to make in the op?
Alex
 
Last edited:
You guys don’t seem to be able to prove all of your claims,
Sometimes you seem reasonably intelligent...other times you seem like the exact opposite.
How many times do you need to be told that science theories is not about "proof " as such. Let me spell it out again as simply as possible. A scientific theory is as good as it gets, other then for scientific facts and laws. They are formulated and modeled, based on scientific experimental results and observational data. As time goes on, and technology improves and more observational data comes to light, a theory may be modified, added to, or scrapped in favour of a better theory based on those observations....or, as is the case with GR, which is being constantly tested to further extremes everyday, and passing all those tests with flying colours, that theory becomes more and more certain. The theory of the evolution of life is so overwhelmingly evidenced that it is now a knowable and observable fact. Other theories may still stand even when new ones explain things to a greater degree of accuracy...We use Newtonian gravity every day on Earth, and as far as I am aware, for near all, if not all, space endeavours. Yet we know Einstein's GR gives a more accurate picture, which is simply not needed at the levels where Newtonian gravity is used.
Yet scientists and cosmologists believe that one day we will have an even more accurate theory then GR.
Science learns, improves, and gives us more knowledge about the universe we inhabit.
If medical authorities tell you you need a life saving operation, are you going to pray instead of undergoing that operation? If you decide to do both, then great.
So please, stop your nonsense re proof. As long as scientific theories match the experimental and observational data, they hold true as the best explanation we have.
 
My mother always told me that and I agree ..so good for you.

Maybe...but please put up a claim wherein it seems we are not able to prove our claims so we can at least make some excuses and demonstrate we are all really not so different.
It boils down to one thing really the claim that JC was the Son of God has not been proven, or that the resurrection is fact or that Mosses was a real person, or that Johna lived in a whale and was vommitted up ok, or that the biblical flood occurred...although it does seem there could be some basis to a flood event, but not total, around the Younger Dryas event..which perhaps was taken up by the Sumerians and later adopted into the bible, which seems to be drawn on possibly three different authors.
It just seems extrodinary that you I expect will agree that thousands of gods were invented but that yours somehow was not.
That should be difficult to reconcile don't you think.
Anyways what was the point you were trying to make with your OP?
May I ask ..do you see the Adam and Eve story as true or merely an anology?
Do you believe there was a flood as described in the bible and two ( sometimes more) animals were saved and that the human race was cut down to only eight people?
I promise I won't tell you are wrong as I am sincerely interested to know if you take the bible literally.
And have you put together the evidence to support your claim that I am a brilliant person I want to know as it could help me manage my terrible inferiority complex.
And do you think your god should play a more active roll in our world by heading off terrible disasters and the resulting human suffering..you know stop these damn Earth quakes, the resulting tsunami...maybe stop wars, cruelty to animals and people and particularly domestic violence...
Can you appreciate why I find it impossible to think for one moment anything that godism suggests is true.
If we need a moral compass could we not just follow budah teachings?
Do you believe all the other gods are inventions?
Anyways what was your point you were trying to make in the op?
Alex

You wrote a lot there and will try and respond at least to a few things.

How is it possible that two of the most influential historical people the world has ever known, Moses and Jesus, never existed?

For Moses, there is extensive evidence sitting on the ground in Saudi Arabia for the Exodus Account.

For Jesus, there is the evidence of the resurrection found within the 3D image of the Shroud of Turin and also the matching face cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo.

For Noah and the Flood, there are records of the Flood found in many cultures around the World. There is evidence for the Flood and the Tower of Babel events embedded in the Chinese character symbols. And there is evidence for the Flood found in the rock layers deposited by water around the Globe.

Perhaps we could say that Santa has had some influence on the world but even he was a real person.

Regarding the Bible...

Personally, I don’t think that every word in the Bible was ever intended to be taken absolutely literally.

There are certainly many places that Claim to be literal and historical.

Many other places written in different genres, like poetry for example, do not ever make that claim.

There are many things I don’t understand, and try to figure out. I don’t know everything. I don’t have perfect knowledge. There are a number of moral questions I have. Some of the same ones you probably have. I don’t have or need all of the answers to everything I wonder about.

I have been through, probably not all, but many of the “difficult” passages that Atheists like to throw at Christians. And in past years I even went after Christians myself with some of them. There are some that break the heart and are morally incomprehensible to me. I know they exist, because I have read them myself.

If those difficult verses are the Arrows in the hands of the Atheist, or other Critics, my Shield is very simply my Trust in God regarding the hard things I don’t understand.

I tried to address some of your questions, but I do not at all expect to convince you with my “make believe” ramblings.

Gotta get some sleep.
Take Care!
 
Last edited:
Sometimes you seem reasonably intelligent...other times you seem like the exact opposite.
How many times do you need to be told that science theories is not about "proof " as such. Let me spell it out again as simply as possible. A scientific theory is as good as it gets, other then for scientific facts and laws. They are formulated and modeled, based on scientific experimental results and observational data. As time goes on, and technology improves and more observational data comes to light, a theory may be modified, added to, or scrapped in favour of a better theory based on those observations....or, as is the case with GR, which is being constantly tested to further extremes everyday, and passing all those tests with flying colours, that theory becomes more and more certain. The theory of the evolution of life is so overwhelmingly evidenced that it is now a knowable and observable fact. Other theories may still stand even when new ones explain things to a greater degree of accuracy...We use Newtonian gravity every day on Earth, and as far as I am aware, for near all, if not all, space endeavours. Yet we know Einstein's GR gives a more accurate picture, which is simply not needed at the levels where Newtonian gravity is used.
Yet scientists and cosmologists believe that one day we will have an even more accurate theory then GR.
Science learns, improves, and gives us more knowledge about the universe we inhabit.
If medical authorities tell you you need a life saving operation, are you going to pray instead of undergoing that operation? If you decide to do both, then great.
So please, stop your nonsense re proof. As long as scientific theories match the experimental and observational data, they hold true as the best explanation we have.

OK, I understand and agree with you.

So do Atheists require “proof” for God’s existence?
If so, how is that reasonable?
 
OK, I understand and agree with you.

So do Atheists require “proof” for God’s existence?
If so, how is that reasonable?
Contrary to popular belief - atheists are not a homogeneous group. Ask 100 of them and you'll get 101 different answers. As for me, I don't know what would constitute "proof". I guess a solid definition of what you mean by the word "God" would be a good starting point.
 
You were lying and were being called out on it. The claims are yours, you made them up, science never made those claims, liar.

You could at least say...

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

You know, just once, for emphasis!

I used or restated Claims made by others, even to start with in the original thread Post.

I really did not invent the basic Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism. And I did not invent the idea that they are the foundational assumptions of Science. Particularly Claim #1, and some form of Claim#2.

Call me crazy, if you wish, please!

I must still be clueless.
 
Last edited:
The assumptions of science?
https://www.google.com/search?q=what assumptions is science based on&oq=what assumptions is science based on&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l4.11446j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
These six assumptions are common to all the disciplines, to all scientists:
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
  • We can know nature. ...
  • All phenomena have natural causes. ...
  • Nothing is self evident. ...
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
or a more detailed answer here.........https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Q,

In the words of others...
One of the six assumptions of Science is...

“All phenomena have natural causes.”

That is a Truth Claim, and is either true or false.

This is a Claim made by Naturalism, made out of thin air, that has never been proven. Please notice the word “All” in the Claim. It is a faith position, a belief.

If that is incorrect or a lie, and the Claim really has been proven, then please show me the proof for it.

I don’t understand!

Help me out.
Where is the lie there?
 
Last edited:
OK, I understand and agree with you.

So do Atheists require “proof” for God’s existence?
If so, how is that reasonable?
Not at all. And let's again be clear...stop being obsessed with Atheism as Vociferous and Jan were. Science says nothing more then we have no evidence for any God, and so far have shown the concept to be superfluous at best. [at least to t+10-43 seconds]
 
You wrote a lot there and will try and respond at least to a few things.
Thank you for your reply and as I promised I will not say you are wrong and at least for the moment will not comment on the shroud or the indications that the resurrection is no doubt a myth.
Alex
 
Q,

In the words of others...
One of the six assumptions of Science is...

“All phenomena have natural causes.”

That is a Truth Claim, and is either true or false.

This is a Claim made by Naturalism, made out of thin air, that has never been proven. Please notice the word “All” in the Claim. It is a faith position, a belief.

If that is incorrect or a lie, and the Claim really has been proven, then please show me the proof for it.

I don’t understand!

Help me out.
Where is the lie there?
Of course you understand it! Let me put it to you..What natural phenomena that you know of is not caused by natural causes?
And also it is an assumption based on the fact that all natural phenomena are explainable, and any that science is at present unable to explain, maybe explainable one day in the future by science and the scientific methodology.
We have absolutely know reason to believe that any unexplained natural phenomena is caused by any unscientific supernatural event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_phenomena
 
Back
Top