what if God could be proven?

[OriginalBiggles]

lightgigantic;read your own post where you say nature is everything that exists ...
:shrug:

then perhaps you should take it up with OB, since he was the one who originally advocated that we could change nature

go back to OB's post
he makes it clear that nature is something we have in our pocket

then perhaps you could try and contextualize his claims rather than saying "you are wrong" "you are an idiot" etc

Such gross and self-serving misrepresentation of my meaning demands that the perpetrator be corrected directly by he whom the perpetrator offends. What decrepitude permeates theistic belief that resort to dishonesty, misrepresentation and deceit be the prime weapons of confrontation?

Here is the C&P of the sentences in contention from #460 P23

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.

When questioned by Lightgigantic, I replied in #472 P24.............

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

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.

I have not asserted and nor have I ever asserted that we CHANGE nature. And note the sentences which I have underlined.

LG #474; reading this post it seems you are talking about nature.
reading your last post it seems you are talking about the laws of nature.
The laws of nature are understandings of how we perceive nature operates. That understanding enables us to use some of the processes of nature to our advantage. In this context I make no distinction between NATURE and the LAWS OF NATURE. It doesn't seem relevant.

The entirety of Earth's biosphere "uses" nature to its advantage but the vast majority of it does so instinctually.............beavers build dams, birds build nests, chimpanzees use sticks and rocks as primitive tools, wombats and rabbits dig holes in the earth, spiders build webs, humans irrigate fields with water and build houses. And all of this happens within nature and is a part of nature.

So the assertion in your #484; then perhaps you should take it up with OB, since he was the one who originally advocated that we could change nature.................is an egregious misrepresentation of what I really advocated.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[thinking]

if god is proven , then this god is no better than US Humans really

in actions

 

[Jan Ardena]

OB,

But he does believe this intelligence he refers to as God, is omniscient, and omnipotent, and is a person. Much like the majority of theist.

There is a malodorous whiff of sectarian bigotry here. Your sweeping claim is an immediate clarion call to skepticism and makes even more imperative that you account for the assertion that christianity is not a religion.

As you have misinterpreted my post, I suggest you re-read it, try and understand what is written, then base you response on it, rather than go off on a tangent.

With regard to Anthony Flew, what is your response?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

if god is proven , then this god is no better than US Humans really

in actions

What do you mean by that?

jan.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

OB,



As you have misinterpreted my post, I suggest you re-read it, try and understand what is written, then base you response on it, rather than go off on a tangent.

With regard to Anthony Flew, what is your response?

jan.

As I issued several challenges to you for responses in my past couple of posts, I consider you have an obligation to settle those before you make any requests from me. And kindly refrain from asking which challenges I refer to. They are in plain sight, unmistakable and unequivocal.

You claim as well that I have misinterpreted your assertions about Anthony Flew................

But he does believe this intelligence he refers to as God, is omniscient, and omnipotent, and is a person. Much like the majority of theist.

There is a malodorous whiff of sectarian bigotry here. Your sweeping claim is an immediate clarion call to skepticism and makes even more imperative that you account for the assertion that christianity is not a religion.

And here I refer you to what I wrote about Flew [quoted from the Wikipedia article]
When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god". When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not", stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted to Christianity...............

Flew had an unequalled opportunity to describe his "god" and described him/her as "inoffensive" and "inactive". Hardly omniscient and omnipotent!

Flew was a philosopher who thought his personal incredulity trumped real science. He believed in Intelligent Design but held a more positive picture of a god than Einstein did. From the same post of mine, Flew claimed he had "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" He even compares himself with Einstein!

It is a shame that he equated his obsession with ID with that of Einstein. In this he did the latter a great disfavour. Einstein reified and deified what his "frail and feeble mind" could not grasp. He speculated on various shapes that this "forbidden" knowledge should take and bestowed several names on it. It could be said that he held in great reverence the wonders revealed to him and an even greater reverence for that which he knew was beyond his knowing.

Flew proclaimed ID as the solution to his troublesome inability to fathom the mysteries. Einstein did not so proclaim!

It is crystal clear then that I did not misinterpret your claims about Flew and nor did I fly off on a tangent. It seems you would descend into accusing your interlocutor of deceit rather than meet challenges and questions with honest attempts at satisfactory answers.

I am always ready to stand and face challenges, and having read a significant number of your posts and responses I'm inclined to believe you're more insubstantial bluff and aggression than calm and dispassionate reason.

Prove me wrong if you can.

Biggles, Prime

 

[Jan Ardena]

Christianity may be "religion" for you, but not for billions of people past and present, from all over the globe.

you replied;

Then they have falsified census forms for centuries. You seem to have a unique insight into the mind of the trinity. Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to the reasoning behind your remark.

Your reply is either lacks understanding of my statement, or is completely irrelevant. Christianity while being a religion, is not "religion". You seem to think that Flew's admission of not converting to "christianity" means he is not religious in the traditional sense. My point is, he was, as was Einstein. They're just not christians, muslims, or practioners of judaism.

Flew had an unequalled opportunity to describe his "god" and described him/her as "inoffensive" and "inactive". Hardly omniscient and omnipotent!

I suggest you look up "an interview with an EX-atheist", and hear for yourself,
straight from the horses mouth, his understanding of God.
Also, in one of your quotes from Einstein, he refers to this universal intelligence as a person.

Take your head out of the dirt son.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My point is, he was, as was Einstein.

More lies from you.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.

 

[Lori_7]

More lies from you.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.

what about a respect for nature (creation)? do we respect what we find scientifically or otherwise, or do we exploit it and each other? i think that ethics should be based on respect, regardless of sympathy, education, and social ties.

that's where faith (NOT religion) comes in (ironically).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

More lies from you.

Not at all.
Religion is not something that we believe, although there are people who believe in religion. IOW believing that christianity, or islam, is the true religion, does not make someone necesserily religious. Not believing in these or any institute of religion does not nesessarily make one "not relgious".
Religion involves work, IOW one must be active in someway or form.
Einstein was a scientist, and percieved and expressed himself from that perspective, and it was from that he percieved God.
You are labouring under the misconception that to be religious, one must be
like a christian, moslem, or jew.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

Here you have simply taken the words "religious conviction", equated it with
"RELIGION", and voila, come to a very simplistic conclusion.
What kind of "religious" convictions was he accused of?
There is a quote where he gives his explanation of a "personal god", which sheds light on his quote.

If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

As I stated before, this is his work, just like Mozart expressed, and percieved God through music.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

That he views the idea of a "personal god" an "antropological concept", does not mean he does not believe in an intellent force responsible for the workings of the cosmos. Indeed he has made many references to this, which has been ignored, or claimed to (all of a sudden) using God as a metaphor.

With regard to the rest of the quote, we learn properly through experience, and to experience we have to be active. That action is work, and that work defines us. The idea of "reward and punishment" is the basis of modern society, and is heavily, and increasingly being adopted by the youth.
If it were a truly religious concept, it would be decreasing as we become more technologically advanced.

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.

Notice he said, "the WORD..", and not the idea of god.
The word itself means different things to different people.
The vedic systems of dharma (translated cruedly as religion) makes no mention of "God", but gives aspectual descriptions to the original cause.
IMHO, Einstein was more aware of this type of philosophy, understanding the need for religion, understanding that there is an intelligence outside of our basic sensual experience,somehow able to communicate itself through the wonders of the universe, but not involved in our day to day lives, like some order supplier.

It's religion, but not the kind you think.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Religion involves work, IOW one must be active in someway or form.

Nonsense.

You are labouring under the misconception that to be religious, one must be like a christian, moslem, or jew.

Wrong again.

That he views the idea of a "personal god" an "antropological concept", does not mean he does not believe in an intellent force responsible for the workings of the cosmos.

I see you ignored the words "which I cannot take seriously.
and "I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere"
And instead go straight to your argument that because he hasn't specifically denied something then he must have have agreed with it.

It's religion, but not the kind you think.

You have no idea what I think.

Einstein was not a theist.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

Jan Ardena,
In the manner of so many religious fanatics you rely on obliquity, the shock of improbable juxtaposition and illogical assumption.
In like manner you sought and took the very first exit that opened to you in order to avoid challenge. In the manner of the defeated cur you threw back a patronising growl.

The juvenile misperception that saturates your posts is that of the intellectually indolent fundamentalist............contrive an opposing argument into a convenient straw-man and then loudly declaim your own diametric opposite must then be true.
In truth, Einstein thoroughly detested your ilk and the way in which you are prepared to contrive and contort truth.
You use similarly dishonest tactics with Flew........if a certain notion was not specifically rejected by him, then he must have been in favour of it!
I'm certain these two men, intellectual giants of a stature forever beyond your narrow demeaning sectarian purpose, were in accord when Einstein voiced his opinion of your ilk; "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."
It is a signal characteristic of your kind of palsied allegiance that you pervert the memories of the dead with your execrable diseased certainties. Were they still alive you would scarce have the courage to peer balefully from under your rock. Only when you are beyond their wrath do you sully them with your meretricious twaddle.

Biggles, Prime

 

[NMSquirrel]

Jan Ardena,
In the manner of so many religious fanatics you rely on obliquity, the shock of improbable juxtaposition and illogical assumption.
In like manner you sought and took the very first exit that opened to you in order to avoid challenge. In the manner of the defeated cur you threw back a patronising growl.

The juvenile misperception that saturates your posts is that of the intellectually indolent fundamentalist............contrive an opposing argument into a convenient straw-man and then loudly declaim your own diametric opposite must then be true.
In truth, Einstein thoroughly detested your ilk and the way in which you are prepared to contrive and contort truth.
You use similarly dishonest tactics with Flew........if a certain notion was not specifically rejected by him, then he must have been in favour of it!
I'm certain these two men, intellectual giants of a stature forever beyond your narrow demeaning sectarian purpose, were in accord when Einstein voiced his opinion of your ilk; "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."
It is a signal characteristic of your kind of palsied allegiance that you pervert the memories of the dead with your execrable diseased certainties. Were they still alive you would scarce have the courage to peer balefully from under your rock. Only when you are beyond their wrath do you sully them with your meretricious twaddle.

Biggles, Prime

that has got to be the most eloquent and wordy slam i have ever read here.....

 

[OriginalBiggles]

NMSquirrel,
I thank you for your observation. I rejoice that evolution has bestowed even these meagre talents on this unworthy.
It is a frequent source of perplexity in me that I am driven to a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Where the cunning of the rat is unconscionably elevated to the nobility of logic and reason, whether it is found wanting or not.
Jan demonstrates with painful clarity that a mind steeped in cunning is forever mired in that milieu. It requires more than cunning to escape.

I'm indebted to Oliver Goldsmith, Irish writer, poet and physician, who declared; "Every absurdity has a champion who will defend it." ........for doubtless he had dolts like Jan in mind.

And on a serious note; "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." — Blaise Pascal

And Jan's propensity for distorting truth, lying and misrepresenting is the grossest absurdity and obscenity.

Biggles, Prime