XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:02:14 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>On 10/13/2014 7:00 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:02:18 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> .
>>> On 10/8/2014 8:12 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:02:55 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/7/2014 9:12 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:45:46 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/6/2014 7:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:27:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2014 9:05 PM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:10:14 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:35 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:27:00 -0600, Uergil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
mur@.not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most that I've encountered try to claim they have no belief.
Not believing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any gods exist can mean having no belief, or it could mean
believing no gods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. Even after making it clear they believe no gods exist
many atheists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most atheists only SUSPECT that no gods exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No place(s) in the entire universe? Or just none
associated with this planet
>>>>>>>>>>>> or star system?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are zero gods that are supported by evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there
"should be", WHERE you
>>>>>>>>>> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's
benefit for him
>>>>>>>>>> to provide us with it if he exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is materialist, thus limited and confined to natural
occurrence
>>>>>>>>> and natural entities made up of matter, thus the scientific method
has
>>>>>>>>> no capability to examine and study the unnatural; therefore there
can be
>>>>>>>>> no solid, empirical evidence for Deity, since Deity does not consist
of
>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are objecting that science doesn't accept bullshit that people
>>>>>>>> make up and attribute to some god or other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply stated facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Religious claims are not facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What about the above statement, in you opinion, does not portend facts?
>>>>
>>>> The idea that there a nonexistent things that can be studied.
>>>>
>>> By non existent things, you mean non-material. It's arrogance to assert
>>> there are no non-existent things, since by things we concede that such
>>> is made up of matter, and no Jews or Christians believe that deity
>>> consist of matter.
>>
>> I'm a weak agnostic but believe if God does exist that he also sent
Jesus to
>> Earth referring to him as his son. I also believe he can and does exist in
>> physical forms, but don't believe he would be restricted to any one
particular
>> form or gender. But where would human scientists begin to look for his
physical
>> being? How would they look for it? Why would it be to God's benefit to make
>> himself available for their probing and proding??? The very idea is absurd.
The
>> fact that there's no physical evidence of God's existence if he exists is
>> meaningless unless someone can say why it should be available, and how, and
of
>> course where. The same thing still applies to the atheist demand for ANY
kind of
>> evidence. Obviously there IS enough evidence to satisfy billions of people
that
>> there's a God associated with Earth. In spite of that FACT atheists like to
>> dishonestly deny that there is any. But when challenged to try to explain
what
>> sort of evidence they think should exist, where they think it should be,
and why
>> they think it should be to God's benefit to make if available if he exists,
not
>> a single atheist in these ngs has been able to give a respectable
explanation.
>> So we see that atheists dishonestly deny what evidence there is, while being
>> entirely clueless as to what evidence they think should be where or why it
>> should be there if God does exist.
>>
>With one or two exceptions, I agree with this statement. I reject the
>idea that the deity is a physical being.
As yet I have no reason to believe a deity would be somehow restricted from
taking physical forms, but instead believe it would be able to take on many and
possibly any forms it wanted to use and experience.
>Since physical means elements,
>it isn't a reasonable pov because the elements were created inside stars
>and supernova except for hydrogen some helium and lithium which was
>created in the big bang itself. So, I can't square my views with the
>idea that the intelligent designer is a product of it's own design. I
>accept the scientific theory that the universe had a beginning and
>will come to an end.
So do I but that certainly doesn't restrict deities from having physical
form when they want to, or from ever wanting to. My impression is that matter
and energy came first before deities could have developed, even if there is a
being or are beings who influenced this particular cycle that's been going on
since and possibly before the big bang.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
