what if God could be proven?

[OriginalBiggles]

BTW, LG;
Herewith is the quote I promised to find from that great US orator, author and atheist, Robert Green Ingersoll.

"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."...........Robert Green Ingersoll

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic #422,
You don't get it?
Theism aims at removing the living entity from the medium of material existence, as opposed to solving the tribulations of material existence within the confines of conditioned existence (which is an impossible ask).

I confess to a chuckle at the endless perfidy and complacency of a mind that sees a "Beam me up Scotty" to paradise scenario as vastly more credible than the mainstream advances science has made to the betterment of the human condition, at the eradication of diseases, at the doubled human life-span, at the increase in leisure time through advances in technology.

I see 11,000 post LG's masochism and self-flagellation revealed here with unequalled clarity. All humankind's struggle, achievements, intellectual yearnings are as nought when bathed in the light of an imaginary hereafter.

The "beam me up" scenario is theism's "possible", nay, hopeful task. A sure and certain hope [which is tautologically indefensible] of a life beyond the grave.

Solving the problems of the human condition, facing the tribulations of living in a material world and emerging triumphant is an ennobling feature of the humankind you seek to denigrate by your unsavoury urge to constrain them
in a mire of theological treacle.

The distaste you feel for your own life is an unfortunate burden either forced upon you at an early age or willingly embraced by you. Your religion blinds you to all the joys and wonders to be experienced in what is in fact the only life we have. The yearning you have for the next life will ensure it comes soon enough and then you will live only in the memories of those who knew you. Your body chemicals are the same stuff that the stars are made from. Your consciousness will become a single vibration in the symphony of the Cosmos. Only your identity, your ego, will be lost forever.

At its very deepest level, this is what riles theists.

Our presumptions aside, humans are a part of nature and must obey the laws of nature. Nothing we do, nothing that we can do, violates a law of nature.
Nature does not change her ways, we adapt nature's ways to a new purpose or we adapt to nature's ways.

I am enjoying my life to the fullest as any other animal in the animal kingdom. I fear you are ignoring the only opportunity you will ever have.
After all, animals are people too.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

biggles taps out

 

[lightgigantic]

BTW, LG;
Herewith is the quote I promised to find from that great US orator, author and atheist, Robert Green Ingersoll.

"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."...........Robert Green Ingersoll

OriginalBiggles, Prime

my dog used to do the same thing until I had it dewormed

 

[OriginalBiggles]

11,000 post lightgigantic, your posts #462 and #463 reveal the customary insight and wisdom we have come to expect from you.
The readership is aghast at the attention to detail and the depth of your perception.
Those who can express themselves in wordless humility are the saviours of humankind.

It is so difficult then to grasp and appreciate how simply by posting here you manage to reduce the collective erudition level of the group so much.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[lightgigantic]

11,000 post lightgigantic, your posts #462 and #463 reveal the customary insight and wisdom we have come to expect from you.
The readership is aghast at the attention to detail and the depth of your perception.
Those who can express themselves in wordless humility are the saviours of humankind.

It is so difficult then to grasp and appreciate how simply by posting here you manage to reduce the collective erudition level of the group so much.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

A troll by any other name is still a troll ...
(btw the same holds for a sockpuppet)

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

But LG you are not responding to his posts. Post #460 presents a legitimate argument but you answer it with tomfoolery. That would kind of make you the troll.

 

[lightgigantic]

But LG you are not responding to his posts. Post #460 presents a legitimate argument but you answer it with tomfoolery. That would kind of make you the troll.

there was a legitimate argument there?

please divulge ...

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well go back and take a look. Its seems he was legitimately pointing his arguments to your claims or beliefs.

For example:


1) "Our presumptions aside, humans are a part of nature and must obey the laws of nature. Nothing we do, nothing that we can do, violates a law of nature.
Nature does not change her ways, we adapt nature's ways to a new purpose or we adapt to nature's ways."

2) "Solving the problems of the human condition, facing the tribulations of living in a material world and emerging triumphant is an ennobling feature of the humankind you seek to denigrate by your unsavoury urge to constrain them
in a mire of theological treacle."

3) "The yearning you have for the next life will ensure it comes soon enough and then you will live only in the memories of those who knew you. Your body chemicals are the same stuff that the stars are made from. Your consciousness will become a single vibration in the symphony of the Cosmos. Only your identity, your ego, will be lost forever."

I would have thought those areas something of your speciality and therefore able to confront the criticism than merely resorting to avoidance.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well go back and take a look. Its seems he was legitimately pointing his arguments to your claims or beliefs.

For example:


1) "Our presumptions aside, humans are a part of nature and must obey the laws of nature. Nothing we do, nothing that we can do, violates a law of nature.
Nature does not change her ways, we adapt nature's ways to a new purpose or we adapt to nature's ways."

I don't follow
if we can't act outside of nature, how do we "adapt" nature and to what?

2) "Solving the problems of the human condition, facing the tribulations of living in a material world and emerging triumphant is an ennobling feature of the humankind you seek to denigrate by your unsavoury urge to constrain them
in a mire of theological treacle."

once again, biggles taps out

3) "The yearning you have for the next life will ensure it comes soon enough and then you will live only in the memories of those who knew you. Your body chemicals are the same stuff that the stars are made from. Your consciousness will become a single vibration in the symphony of the Cosmos. Only your identity, your ego, will be lost forever."

sounds like he just finished having a cup of coffee with vienna circle or something ... needless to say, there are alternative views

I would have thought those areas something of your speciality and therefore able to confront the criticism than merely resorting to avoidance.

Maybe there are some arguments there but biggles is displaying the prime original qualities of a troll ... eg - a few posts over a 12 month period ... with the incendiary familiarity of the socky ... so I don't take him too seriously

 

[OriginalBiggles]

The readership will note that unerringly 11,000 post lightgigantic avoids pertinent issues and questions and expects a discerning viewer to marvel at his triviality and superficiality as if those alone are sufficient to command their submission and silence.

Obviously 11,000 post lightgigantic would sequester his "alternative views" from the reach of rationality and reason. Though implacable in his belief, he sees it as vulnerable to the lights of reason and logic, preserving for it only the saccharine attention and pandering of his bretheren in belief.

Religious faith, that is belief in the face of and in spite of reason and evidence, is always vulnerable for in defence it is denied the resort to reason and logic.

sounds like he just finished having a cup of coffee with vienna circle or something

Resort to such triviality and superficiality is that admission which declares; "I have no credible response."

... so I don't take him too seriously.

Such a dismissive wave of the hand belies; "I don't dare take him too seriously."

What is revealed here is an acknowledgement that certain issues and questions posed to the believer must eventually receive the ultimate "God works in mysterious ways....." response. By avoiding this response, 11,000 post lightgigantic is revealing his own lack of confidence in his god's mysterious ways. He, like the rational reasonable atheists, thinks it is a pretty silly excuse as well.

Expect more dismissive remarks tinged with a smidgin of contempt. I assure the reader there'll be nothing of substance forthcoming.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[lightgigantic]

The readership will note that unerringly 11,000 post lightgigantic avoids pertinent issues and questions and expects a discerning viewer to marvel at his triviality and superficiality as if those alone are sufficient to command their submission and silence.

Obviously 11,000 post lightgigantic would sequester his "alternative views" from the reach of rationality and reason. Though implacable in his belief, he sees it as vulnerable to the lights of reason and logic, preserving for it only the saccharine attention and pandering of his bretheren in belief.

Religious faith, that is belief in the face of and in spite of reason and evidence, is always vulnerable for in defence it is denied the resort to reason and logic.

sounds like he just finished having a cup of coffee with vienna circle or something

Resort to such triviality and superficiality is that admission which declares; "I have no credible response."

... so I don't take him too seriously.

Such a dismissive wave of the hand belies; "I don't dare take him too seriously."

What is revealed here is an acknowledgement that certain issues and questions posed to the believer must eventually receive the ultimate "God works in mysterious ways....." response. By avoiding this response, 11,000 post lightgigantic is revealing his own lack of confidence in his god's mysterious ways. He, like the rational reasonable atheists, thinks it is a pretty silly excuse as well.

Expect more dismissive remarks tinged with a smidgin of contempt. I assure the reader there'll be nothing of substance forthcoming.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

sheesh

a smidge of contempt would pale in comparison with yours truly, the 44 post sock

 

[OriginalBiggles]

I don't follow
if we can't act outside of nature, how do we "adapt" nature and to what?

If I may usurp Lucysnow's privilege of answering.............

It's a very simple feature of humankind's existence on Earth.

[a] We can influence the weather to our purpose.

We can change the course of rivers to our purpose.

[c] We can level mountains to our purpose.

[d] We husband and breed animals, farm and breed food plants to our purpose.
[e] We mine nature's raw materials and refine them to a multitude of purposes.

Except for [e], nature could accomplish what I have listed over millions of years. Humans accomplish this in a fraction of the time and to suit ourselves. We are adapting nature and/or natural processes to our purpose.

It's quite simple really when you take time to think about it, which you didn't.

And we accomplished this "within" nature, as a part of nature.

When reflecting on this and examining the position of your god as needing to be "outside" of nature in order to create nature, it seems to me you are yourself creating a specious argument in order to avoid the necessity of your god needing a creator.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[OriginalBiggles]

sheesh

a smidge of contempt would pale in comparison with yours truly, the 44 post sock

This is what you call "fulfilling prophecy", isn't it? I predict what you're going to say [and not say] and you deliver as expected.

How prophetic can that be??????? 3951 are the last four digits of my home phone number!!!!!!

Did I say something about "myserious ways"? [shudders and looks tremulously skyward.............no one there, thank god]

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't follow
if we can't act outside of nature, how do we "adapt" nature and to what?

If I may usurp Lucysnow's privilege of answering.............

It's a very simple feature of humankind's existence on Earth.

[a] We can influence the weather to our purpose.

We can change the course of rivers to our purpose.

[c] We can level mountains to our purpose.

[d] We husband and breed animals, farm and breed food plants to our purpose.
[e] We mine nature's raw materials and refine them to a multitude of purposes.

Except for [e], nature could accomplish what I have listed over millions of years. Humans accomplish this in a fraction of the time and to suit ourselves. We are adapting nature and/or natural processes to our purpose.

It's quite simple really when you take time to think about it, which you didn't.

And we accomplished this "within" nature, as a part of nature.

When reflecting on this and examining the position of your god as needing to be "outside" of nature in order to create nature, it seems to me you are yourself creating a specious argument in order to avoid the necessity of your god needing a creator.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

reading this post it seems you are talking about nature.
reading your last post it seems you are talking about the laws of nature.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is what you call "fulfilling prophecy", isn't it? I predict what you're going to say [and not say] and you deliver as expected.

How prophetic can that be??????? 3951 are the last four digits of my home phone number!!!!!!

Did I say something about "myserious ways"? [shudders and looks tremulously skyward.............no one there, thank god]

OriginalBiggles, Prime

ok
let me have a go

I predict that you will post caricatured arguments against theism with a simultaneous attempt to flame me.

I guess I must be psychic, eh?

 

[spidergoat]

The readership will note that unerringly 11,000 post lightgigantic avoids pertinent issues and questions and expects a discerning viewer to marvel at his triviality and superficiality as if those alone are sufficient to command their submission and silence.

Obviously 11,000 post lightgigantic would sequester his "alternative views" from the reach of rationality and reason. Though implacable in his belief, he sees it as vulnerable to the lights of reason and logic, preserving for it only the saccharine attention and pandering of his bretheren in belief.

Religious faith, that is belief in the face of and in spite of reason and evidence, is always vulnerable for in defence it is denied the resort to reason and logic.

sounds like he just finished having a cup of coffee with vienna circle or something

Resort to such triviality and superficiality is that admission which declares; "I have no credible response."

... so I don't take him too seriously.

Such a dismissive wave of the hand belies; "I don't dare take him too seriously."

What is revealed here is an acknowledgement that certain issues and questions posed to the believer must eventually receive the ultimate "God works in mysterious ways....." response. By avoiding this response, 11,000 post lightgigantic is revealing his own lack of confidence in his god's mysterious ways. He, like the rational reasonable atheists, thinks it is a pretty silly excuse as well.

Expect more dismissive remarks tinged with a smidgin of contempt. I assure the reader there'll be nothing of substance forthcoming.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

You said it, brother, testify!

 

[lightgigantic]

You said it, brother, testify!

Golly, eh?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Lucysnow,

Well go back and take a look. Its seems he was legitimately pointing his arguments to your claims or beliefs.

For example:

1) "Our presumptions aside, humans are a part of nature and must obey the laws of nature. Nothing we do, nothing that we can do, violates a law of nature.
Nature does not change her ways, we adapt nature's ways to a new purpose or we adapt to nature's ways."

This point goes nowhere unless he can explain what nature is and isn't, what aspect of our human existence "must obey" the laws, and what those laws actually are in their entirety.
Also, what is the point of obeying laws, if there is nothing we can do to violate them?

2) "Solving the problems of the human condition, facing the tribulations of living in a material world and emerging triumphant is an ennobling feature of the humankind you seek to denigrate by your unsavoury urge to constrain them
in a mire of theological treacle."

This is nothing more than an oppotunity to insult LG, most probably because
he realises (OB) he doesn't have a real point to make outside of "i can't see God therefore he does not exist".

3) "The yearning you have for the next life will ensure it comes soon enough and then you will live only in the memories of those who knew you. Your body chemicals are the same stuff that the stars are made from. Your consciousness will become a single vibration in the symphony of the Cosmos. Only your identity, your ego, will be lost forever."

This is not a debatable point, but an opinion based on ones world view.

I would have thought those areas something of your speciality and therefore able to confront the criticism than merely resorting to avoidance.

He answered them very early on, quite adequately, but the answers were
overlooked because they didn't fit into the mindset of OB, who at heart, seeks to belittle LG. His post are awash with insult, and if you look hard enough, an emotional dislike (bordering on hatred) of God, and religion in general.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This point goes nowhere unless he can explain what nature is and isn't

Nature is what exists.

what aspect of our human existence "must obey" the laws

All aspects.

and what those laws actually are in their entirety

That's a totally specious request (and, I suspect, pointless: why do you need to know them in their entirety?).

Also, what is the point of obeying laws, if there is nothing we can do to violate them?

That's why we "obey" them - because they cannot be broken.
You're thinking of natural laws as if they were legal laws. Incorrect. one (natural laws) are descriptive: they describe how things are; the other (legal) are prescriptive: they state how we as humans want things to be.

This is not a debatable point, but an opinion based on ones world view.

Surely the fact that it's an opinion (as opposed to an incontrovertible fact) is what makes it debatable?

and if you look hard enough, an emotional dislike (bordering on hatred) of God, and religion in general.

There's a term for that; eisegesis. If you look hard enough you can discern whatever you want.
How can OB hate something he doesn't believe exists?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Nature is what exists.

And what exists is nature?

All aspects.

So why do we have to obey, as we have no choice?

That's a totally specious request (and, I suspect, pointless: why do you need to know them in their entirety?).

OB appears to know what nature is in its entirety, and the question
is totally relevant in light of his attitude.
How can he possibly know nature cannot change her ways, wouldn't that require knowledge of time (past, present, and future), and knowledge of the
whole of material nature. Otherwise is he not just refering to what HE knows?

That's why we "obey them - because they cannot be broken.

"Obey", somewhere along the line implies choice, and as we have no choice
in this matter (according to OB), what is there to obey?

You're thinking of natural laws as if they were legal laws. Incorrect. one (natural laws) are descriptive: they describe how things are; the other (legal) are prescriptive: they state how we as humans want things to be.

I'm not.
Legal laws change according to time place and circumstance.
It would appear that you and OB are relating to two why you state
we have to OBEY nature.

Surely the fact that it's an opinion (as opposed to an incontrovertible fact) is what makes it debatable?

That would depend on the character of the person whose opinion it is.
In the case of OB, and most explicits I come across, there's no hope of
debate, or reasonable discussion.

There's a term for that; eisegesis. If you look hard enough you can discern whatever you want.

So what's that got to do with anything?

How can OB hate something he doesn't believe exists?

Maybe he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exists, whcih could possibly
explain his frustration when faced with reasonable discourse.
It could be argued that Anthony Flew, the famous atheist, wasn't an actual
atheist, but just playing the part.
Just a thought.

jan.