True atheists?

[Greg1234]

Why do we know that cause?

Because we know what electromagnetic waves are, and we know how certain technological devices can produce them and receive them.

The rest of your post isn't in the English language, and so I can't respond to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Good. You're getting somewhere. How we know this and apply it is what your kind refers to as "Leprachology".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

We already have a cause for the voice on the radio. Radio waves.

When do we apply the name "radio waves" to that cause? After just hearing a bunch of voices would probably be a bit premature, given that there are requirements that need to be met for something to be called "wave." Etc pp.

This is well in progress and study and application is a norm. The "somehow" appeal by Mr "Eudaimonist" is merely that same latent "men used to believe radio waves...primitive..so materialism...somehow" belief being cued and applied.

Sorry, but no. Or better put, probably no, as I only have hazy clues as to what you are going on about. Men used to believe radio waves? Materialism, huh? Materialism, schmaterialism.

We have perceptions, causes, etc and we give names to these things.

This belief is not shared and with study, one can look at what is given for what it is (sans the "men used to").

Of course. And we can call it names. If you wish to do more than just naming stuff, you'll have work to do.

But I really don't see why you need to make the assertion that "men used to".

The trees are in the field, the car is driving, and chance cannot assemble life.

Yes? Go on. "Chance cannot assemble life, but ... ." :o

You could of course use a place-holder name, like, dunno, "that-which-assembles-life", or "Jackie", or some such. But without further qualification, these are all just that, names. Names for what you have no idea about. Euphemisms for "I am clueless." If, now, "God" is also just such a name, maybe even just a place-holder, then would it not mean that "the man" that you are waving about, is evidence for your cluelessness? I would think so. But that really is not my problem.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How we know this and apply it is what your kind refers to as "Leprachology".

By "my kind" I assume you mean atheists.

I'm not familiar with the term "Leprachology". I've never used this term. What does it refer to?

If you are referring to belief in leprechauns, it's easy to apply. If a missing sock is blamed on leprechauns (as if only leprechauns could be the cause of the missing sock), it is reasonable to require more tangible evidence of leprechauns before concluding "leprechauns exist!" Missing socks are far too ambiguous by themselves as evidence. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of leprechaun advocates. (Hint, that's you! )


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

When do we apply the name "radio waves" to that cause? After just hearing a bunch of voices would probably be a bit premature, given that there are requirements that need to be met for something to be called "wave." Etc pp.

Call it whatever you want. If you don't like "radio waves" change it. The name encodes information. Even if I call this computer "brafelsticks", provided that "brafelsticks" encode the information as computer, then "braflesticks" it is. This is not a problem.

Yes? Go on. "Chance cannot assemble life, but ... ." :o

You could of course use a place-holder name, like, dunno, "that-which-assembles-life", or "Jackie", or some such.

Call it what you want. It will be encoded with the appropriate information and applied as the designer.

But without further qualification, these are all just that, names. Names for what you have no idea about.

The fact that we "have no idea about", warranting rejection of what we do know, is your belief. One that makes you an atheist. It is not shared.

Euphemisms for "I am clueless." If, now, "God" is also just such a name, maybe even just a place-holder, then would it not mean that "the man" that you are waving about, is evidence for your cluelessness? I would think so. But that really is not my problem.

If naming radio waves "I am clueless" makes you happy, more comfortable or giggly as an "aradiowavist" then do it. "I am clue less" being assigned to the meaning and nature of radio waves would contain contain the information for radio waves and we move on from this attempt at a rebuttal.

 

[Gishin]

I can't even follow this conversation any more. It's a word salad with way too much dressing.

 

[Greg1234]

By "my kind" I assume you mean atheists.

I'm not familiar with the term "Leprachology". I've never used this term. What does it refer to?

The study of the subject at hand.

If you are referring to belief in leprechauns, it's easy to apply. If a missing sock is blamed on leprechauns (as if only leprechauns could be the cause of the missing sock), it is reasonable to require more tangible evidence of leprechauns before concluding "leprechauns exist!" Missing socks are far too ambiguous by themselves as evidence. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of leprechaun advocates. (Hint, that's you! )



eudaimonia,

Mark

Leprechauns are merely the replacement of the voice on the radio with another manifestation of radio waves, voice b.The finding of voice b (lets say leprechaun) would also be evidence for radio waves.

So by blaming the missing sock on a leprechaun, you have not negated you (a voice on the radio), being a manifestation of God (radio waves). The amenities which come with it also stand.

You might as well blame the missing sock on your mother, or brother, or aunt, or leprechauns (Hint, that's you! ). In the end, analogically, you've only shifted focus from yourself to another manifestation of radio waves, without ever touching radio waves.

While the nature of voice b (leprechauns) infer complete isolation, the radio waves (God) can be studied with both voice b(leprechaun) and the voice on the radio (Man). As the properties of a substrate permit.

The voice on the radio is evidence of radio waves, whether or not one voice is telling another voice that voice b stealing his sock is just like radio waves. When he finds voice b, let me know. In the mean time, I'll use him.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Gregs argument, stripped of fluff, seems to boil down to a straightforward syllogism:

P1: if man exists, then god exists
P2: man exists
C1: therefore god exists

P1 is true because the bible says so
P2 is true by observation

Right, Greg?

 

[Alive_Again]

<There is no evidence that we have spiritual eyes and ears.

There is no physical evidence that you have a spirit or a soul either. That is because they are not of the physical body. Do you believe you are just the sum total of a bunch of neurons and other cells randomly put together? Those who do not hear or see with the spirit/soul find no evidence of them. I tell you that you have them and you CAN hear and see.You won't see just because you want to, because wanting to see is involved in getting to see.

You can't see the wind either, but you see the effects of it and you feel it with your physical senses. You cannot see the spirit realm with your physical eyes and ears.

Have you noticed that most of the people in pretty much every civilization that we know of have something on the inside of them (not their bodies) that wants to acknowledge God. It's intuitive. It was usually pursued in a variety of ways that displayed ignorance about what God is really about, but the need to acknowledge God was there. It was placed there by God. I know you don't see that, but have you noticed that the huge majority of others on the planet do, and have done so throughout recorded civilization? I'm sure you've been told this before, but have you wondered why this is? So many people, for so long.

<but if you came across it, you'd acknowledge that it's more than pitchforks and superstition/stereotypes, and you might find yourself intuitively calling out for the calvary.
<<Based on what facts? What evidence? How do you KNOW this?

There is an "other world" quality of evil that is not of this earth and is very easy to recognize if you see it.

<<The fruits are apparent. Of course you won't see these because you aren't in church.
<Ah, once again - evidence you claim but cannot produce.

That would be because you don't hang out in Spirit filled Christian churches. So if evidence doesn't come right up to you to consider, it is dismissed, and you're content with your final judgment.

<<The judgment was rendered as final without any consideration of evidence. It was sealed with a "period", as though that was indeed the final word.
<Not true. You presume we haven't already examined these cases.

You said that they weren't dead. Period. That defnitely indicates a closed position. You mention different definitions of death, and the definition in the US has been the same for at least 20 years. Just because they don't present the death certificate in their video, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There's a difference between weighing the facts and rendering final judgment.

Weighing the facts: "We've looked at a number of NDEs". We didn't see satisfactory evidence that they had actually died."
Final judgment: "The NDEs were never dead. Period."

<<how can you give me your "final answer" without giving it a chance?
<Why should I give it a chance?

Indicating closed "eyes".

<<...where you objectively consider alternate views, as a "seeker" with a humble heart,
<...No evidence. Try again.

<<Atheists are typically seen to be haughty and highminded. Break the trend and make a point of being open.
<We are. You didn't bother to find out.

<None of us have done that. You should stop telling us to stop rendering final judgement when we haven't done so. On the other hand, you have.

I based my responses on the words I was given.

<But you're not being courteous; you're being rude. And we haven't rendered final judgement, so for you to accuse of doing so is incorrect.

<5. I'm open to any credible evidence and will consider any argument. There has not been any evidence and every argument has failed logically, including yours.
<< My argument is that by previous discussion here, final judgment was rendered without consideration of the facts.
<Your argument was wrong.

<<It didn't fail because right from the first sentences, it demonstrated the very thing I was asking atheists to consider. Isn't saying that it failed logically to be another continuation of that blindness? We've already determined that individual cases were not investigated and an immediate judgment was made.

I'm not familiar with Pascal's Wagner. "Long discredited." Another dismissal. I'm not really presenting you with a plea to believe, I'm asking you to be open. This is offensive? Nothing to lose, everything to gain. That's pretty dangerous isn't it?

The evidence doesn't point to an afterlife? Someone dies and has an experience with God and His kingdom and that isn't extraordinary?

<2. Why is it the burden of the thoughtful and the critical to suffer hell then?

<<We're not talking about being "thoughtful" and "critical". We're talking about rendering final judgments. As a believer, by courtesy I point out to you that you can block the very thing you would like to be convinced of if you ever even considered that there were consequences for our lifestyles by a creator.

<<You have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.
<And you end with Pascal's Wager. Again. How absolutely predictable.

You come back to this again like someone who hangs a latin name on an implied condition, as though the name gives credence to the implication. And your dismissal based on it proves again that you're not "listening". It's a rash judgment. You may have heard the statement before by Pascal (which I haven't), but the point is correct, and you dismiss it easily as though because it's been said before that it's automatically incorrect. "If" there were a creator and he required something of you, it WOULD be in your bests interests to hear of it. Wouldn't it?

If you were open, it might implies that you're a seeker, however seemingly uninspired. It's true, and I do not see the humility and openness of one who is looking, but just hasn't seen anything to convince them yet. So here's a knock-knock from the "other side". The side that really has made contact and entered into God's covenant, and if you would even consider His ways, as declared in the Bible, that God gives grace to the humble, and resists the proud. You would take that under consideration in you "quest" for truth, if you really were on one.

<Please don't take up missionary work.

I consider you guys as one asleep in a large burning building. I consider it a work of mercy to at least have a humble open heart and change from a tendency toward having "seen it all".

<If there is specific incidents you think are compelling - yes, evidence must be presented.
<If there are specific incidents that you think make your case, it's incumbent on you to present them.

My motives to you are pure. My only intent is for you to consider that your behavior points to being closed, rather than open. The very fact that you think I should present you with evidence on what is truly the most important issue of your life is presumptuous. I am not commissioned by God to convince you of His existence. I only ask you to to not render your final answer, and to remain humble and open as a seeker.

<No, actually you don't speak our welfare. If you did, you'd follow the precepts of your Christ and allow his words to speak, rather than making unwarranted assumptions about us and being offensive from the beginning.

From the beginning I said things like: "Sending out a line of mercy to an atheist..." "Wouldn't it be great if you suddenly had a sense that there was something more? And you've got to admit, it would be great if their were more, and there was a God and He was love. That would truly be wonderful wouldn't it? If you're honest with yourself, the possibility that you could receive love and fulfillment outside of your own ingenuity would be outstanding. And that you could live in Heaven forever, would be totally wonderful, wouldn't it? Be honest. That's not offensive, is it?

"Bully on you, chiclet". No comment is needed here (from the beginning).

Gishin was honest was he/she (sorry, I don't know!) said that "I can't believe something just because I wish it to be true." That only means that he/she needs convincing. As her response to #5. that she felt it was more like family or social contentment basically. That was an honest perspective. I'm here to tell you that it is more.

<We as a society have moved past the need for Gods to explain the unknown to us. That is what Nietzsche meant when he said "God is dead".

God indwells His true people and they produce fruit that is not of themselves. It is holy, fulfilling and exciting. It finds expression as love through love/service. God is surely not dead. Unfortunately, Nietzsche was dead (separated from the life of God).

"Lord" Emsworth asked:

<<Sending out a line of mercy to an atheist...
<And just who do you think you are?

I was rude.

<Sorry, I cannot both read your post and forget a large chunk of my worst preconceptions. How about you came down from your high horse and treated other people a little less patronizingly?

I offered hope with the thought that when you bury your family that there is more after death. That's a high horse?

<And then Gishin...
<So many words yet to said nothing, just gave me another variation of Pascal's Wager and betrayed your belief in other superstitions such as voodoo.

As though I slipped or something when I mentioned voodoo, which is real, just on the wrong side of the fence. I supposedly said "nothing" which is what Gishin heard.

I did state that "there's no need at all to get riled since I am appealing to your sense of reasonableness by being open to something you're just not aware of." It was never my intention to be offensive. You chose to be offended.

<*+-Cases? Actual citations? None of them came back healed. You've been reading tripe again.

If I clarify and not even trying to convert you, but only to consider that judgments made with the mouth close your eyes and ears. It's valuable information to discover. If the biblical God did exist, and if He did make His ways known in the Bible, and He wasn't going to change or violate His Word, then it would be very beneficial to consider that if I closed myself by rendering a final judgment than I oppose myself (according to the revelation given in the book). You might further consider that if I was open to discovering that this was true and that I could have eternal life (or death), it would cost me nothing to revise my opinion (in a spirit of humility) and open myself to reconsider that God Himself might open your "eyes and ears", which His book indicates that I have." --- Costs you nothing! No one condemned you to consider it. According to the book, are their personal stakes in knowing. Absolutely.

<No, actually you don't speak our welfare. If you did, you'd follow the precepts of your Christ and allow his words to speak...

You say that I should allow His Words to speak? That's a twist. I know you won't "hear" them if you have a closed mind. I know from experience that rendering final judgments "closes" ones-self to revelation. So I am offensive by challenging you to be open?

I'm beyond the call of duty to ask you to consider being humble and open. I'm not called to convince you. The Word says to preach the Word. He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and those who don't believe are damned. That's pretty cut and dry.

I'm willing to take a little flack in the hope that at least one of you might consider that, "Even though I haven't seen anything conclusive to sway me in this world, maybe I haven't been humble about this, and spoken as though the matter were closed. If the Christian precept about judgment (which you say you know the Bible) is true, then it would be in my bests interest to change my thinking and at least be "open." The Bible also talks about having ears and eyes that can see/hear or be deaf/blind. It would behoove one who would consider themselves to be open and not haughty about this to "give ear" and at least be open.

<...You've been reading tripe again.

If I care about you, I leave the matter between you and God that and implore you to simply open and not render judgments with your words. I gave you a scriptural precept regarding the judgment which you promptly rejected, as is your choice. My motive is pure because if you're not opposing yourself I leave room for God to work with you, opening your eyes to something you haven't seen before. The choice is yours and we are accountable for our choices.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Call it whatever you want. If you don't like "radio waves" change it. The name encodes information.

Yeah, hopefully the name does encode some information. If not ...

Even if I call this computer "brafelsticks", provided that "brafelsticks" encode the information as computer, then "braflesticks" it is. This is not a problem.

No, you are right, it isn't a problem. If your provision is met. If not, it is just word-magic.

Call it what you want. It will be encoded with the appropriate information and applied as the designer.

Sorry, what?? What will be encoded with what by what and how?

The fact that we "have no idea about", warranting rejection of what we do know, is your belief.

Sorry, no. Calling that-what-you-have-no-idea-about by a different name, for instance the name that-what-we-do-know does does not change reality.

I have no beliefs here. There is nothing to assess, nothing to judge, nothing to hold a belief in/about after all. Aside from nothing, that is. But nothing is just that, nothing. Yeah, you might say there is nothing to reject.

One that makes you an atheist.

Rather an non-cognitist, aka ignostic. But don't worry, I am that too.

It is not shared.

How would you know? How would you tell? By slapping names to stuff and playing word games? lol

If naming radio waves "I am clueless" makes you happy, more comfortable or giggly as an "aradiowavist" then do it.

"Radio waves," is to some extent a quite meaningful phrase. Explanations can be given, demonstrations be had. And so on, and so forth. Name here - phenomena there. So, naming "radio waves" "I am clueless" might easily be a misnomer, as there is something expressed.

Radio: Name - phenomena
Radio Waves: Name - phenomena.



Once we get back to your "display of evidence" about 'the man' then things look different:

"The man": Name - phenomena
God: Name - nada

"I am clue less" being assigned to the meaning and nature of radio waves would contain contain the information for radio waves and we move on from this attempt at a rebuttal.

How about we, or better you moved on to that-for-which-the-man-is-evidence? And maybe showed that there is some, how did you call it all the time, information encoded in that name, beyond, well, uhhh-like-you-know, aka nothing.



If you haven't gotten it by now, it is all about meaning. And not empty words. With the latter part you seem to agree at least to some extent. It looks to me, however, as if you had problems with the former.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

<There is no evidence that we have spiritual eyes and ears.

There is no physical evidence that you have a spirit or a soul either.

That's correct. Why should I accept the existence of something I cannot verify? Should I just take your word for it? That would be irrational. You could be lying. You could be insane. You could be joking.

Your word is not good enough.

That is because they are not of the physical body.

Duh.

Do you believe you are just the sum total of a bunch of neurons and other cells randomly put together?

That's what the evidence indicates; that's where I'm going until I am presented with good evidence otherwise.

Those who do not hear or see with the spirit/soul find no evidence of them. I tell you that you have them and you CAN hear and see.You won't see just because you want to, because wanting to see is involved in getting to see.

In other words, I won't believe until I choose to believe.

I can't believe without reason. Got any good reasons?

You can't see the wind either, but you see the effects of it and you feel it with your physical senses. You cannot see the spirit realm with your physical eyes and ears.

Right.

Have you noticed that most of the people in pretty much every civilization that we know of have something on the inside of them (not their bodies) that wants to acknowledge God. It's intuitive. It was usually pursued in a variety of ways that displayed ignorance about what God is really about, but the need to acknowledge God was there.

I have noticed that most people - though certainly not all - have an intuition to the divine, yes.

It was placed there by God.

There's no evidence of that whatsoever.

I know you don't see that, but have you noticed that the huge majority of others on the planet do, and have done so throughout recorded civilization? I'm sure you've been told this before, but have you wondered why this is? So many people, for so long.

Sure I've wondered. I even have some excellent hypotheses to explain it. All of them are testable. None of them involve God.

 

[Greg1234]

Gregs argument, stripped of fluff, seems to boil down to a straightforward syllogism:

P1: if man exists, then god exists
P2: man exists
C1: therefore god exists

P1 is true because the bible says so
P2 is true by observation

Right, Greg?

P1 is not true because "the bible says so". As much as a voice on the radio is evidence of radio waves because "the manual says so".

You've just done what the one before you has done. It's clear that it is the scientific connotations in the way the voice on the radio(man) is determined to be the result of radio waves(God) which causes it to be stripped off.

Science cannot be associated with God. Plain and simple. At no cost, by no means. It is atheism's.

Mr "Eudaimonist" stripped it off three times, adamantly reinstating "ambiguity" by pretending like the voice on the radio is by itself. No radio, no components, no phenomena, no tests, no predictions = no science. Thats better.

Now you do the same thing. Lets strip the "fluff". P1 is because "the bible said so". Thats better.

The study of the various components of the radio, conditions determined to be met, along with references to the manual on the nature of that frequency, enabling tests to be done and the diagnosis of various phenomena, are mapped with "leprachology". The intelligent design of the man is only one point.

The voice on the radio is evidence for radio waves not because "the manual said so" Radio waves will remain invisible, its manifestation perceptible. Thats the way it works.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"Lord" Emsworth asked:

<<Sending out a line of mercy to an atheist...
<And just who do you think you are?

I was rude.

<Sorry, I cannot both read your post and forget a large chunk of my worst preconceptions. How about you came down from your high horse and treated other people a little less patronizingly?

I offered hope with the thought that when you bury your family that there is more after death. That's a high horse?

You are doing it again. Just how stupid do you think other people are? And just how emotionally dead?

that when you bury your family that there is more after death.

Then let us just hope that being a Roman Catholic on paper and apatheist* in practice (as my father is) is enough to buy a ticket to the right type of "more", eh.

* portmanteau of apathetic and theistic. Should be self-explanatory.

 

[Greg1234]

Yeah, hopefully the name does encode some information. If not ...

"Radio waves" encode information.

No, you are right, it isn't a problem. If your provision is met. If not, it is just word-magic.

"Baflesticks" encode information.

Sorry, what?? What will be encoded with what by what and how?

It will be encoded with information with the mechanism for encoding information, by using the mechanism for encoding information, however that mechanism is used.

Sorry, no. Calling that-what-you-have-no-idea-about by a different name, for instance the name that-what-we-do-know does does not change reality.

The idea that one knows nothing is not universal. Its your belief. Telling me to call it that-what-you-have-no-idea-about will be accommodated by adding the information of what we know about to it. Renaming it that-what-you-have-no-idea-about does not mean that the information is carried over and thus refuted. Lol. What is this? You can't be serious.

I have no beliefs here. There is nothing to assess, nothing to judge, nothing to hold a belief in/about after all. Aside from nothing, that is. But nothing is just that, nothing. Yeah, you might say there is nothing to reject.

I'm sure that feels alright and all, but you exist. Your position is based on the belief that what is given is to be rejected in favor of materialism, hence a materialist.

How would you know? How would you tell? By slapping names to stuff and playing word games? lol

By not sharing it.

"Radio waves," is to some extent a quite meaningful phrase. Explanations can be given, demonstrations be had. And so on, and so forth. Name here - phenomena there. So, naming "radio waves" "I am clueless" might easily be a misnomer, as there is something expressed.

Stripping that from the previous posts presented here does not change anything.

Radio: Name - phenomena
Radio Waves: Name - phenomena.



Once we get back to your "display of evidence" about 'the man' then things look different:

"The man": Name - phenomena
God: Name - nada

Start with the designer of man and chance cannot build a man. This is sufficient. Man was created. Start there.

How about we, or better you moved on to that-for-which-the-man-is-evidence?

I'm guessing this is a request to make radio waves perceptible. How a man determines that the voice on the radio is the result of radio waves is not through making radio waves perceptible. Recoding radio waves with "that-which you-have-no-idea-about" is not applicable either as a rebuttal.

And maybe showed that there is some, how did you call it all the time, information encoded in that name, beyond, well, uhhh-like-you-know, aka nothing.

You cannot show a man radio waves. You'll have to do it the hard way. Study and application. If you can, formulate a rebut.

If you haven't gotten it by now, it is all about meaning. And not empty words. With the latter part you seem to agree at least to some extent. It looks to me, however, as if you had problems with the former.

You thought you could empty a word by replacing it with "that-which you-have-no-idea about". It doesnt work. The original information is merely transferred. Even if you called radio waves "hioloplet", the same would be done.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

P1 is not true because "the bible says so". As much as a voice on the radio is evidence of radio waves because "the manual says so".

Then why is P1 true? That's the basic point we're discussing. Why is P1 true?

You've just done what the one before you has done. It's clear that it is the scientific connotations in the way the voice on the radio(man) is determined to be the result of radio waves(God) which causes it to be stripped off.

Meaningless babble.

Science cannot be associated with God. Plain and simple. At no cost, by no means. It is atheism's.

Fine. I've no problem with this. Science and God are incompatible.

Mr "Eudaimonist" stripped it off three times, adamantly reinstating "ambiguity" by pretending like the voice on the radio is by itself. No radio, no components, no phenomena, no tests, no predictions = no science. Thats better.

Here's the basic problem with your analogy: we don't know that the thing is a radio. It's just a box that makes voices. You're claiming it's a radio; we're asking why, and you're refusing to say.

Now you do the same thing. Lets strip the "fluff". P1 is because "the bible said so". Thats better.

But you just said this is wrong.

Make up your mind. That's YOUR syllogism up there. YOUR argument.

You claim P1 is true. Why?

 

[Greg1234]

Then why is P1 true? That's the basic point we're discussing. Why is P1 true?

The study of the various components of the radio, conditions determined to be met, along with references to the manual on the nature of that frequency, enabling tests to be done and the diagnosis of various phenomena, are mapped with "leprachology". The intelligent design of the man is only one point.

Fine. I've no problem with this. Science and God are incompatible.

It will still be presented. You may keep it ignoring it for reason now obvious.

Here's the basic problem with your analogy: we don't know that the thing is a radio. It's just a box that makes voices. You're claiming it's a radio; we're asking why, and you're refusing to say.

The study of the various components of the radio, conditions determined to be met, along with references to the manual on the nature of that frequency, enabling tests to be done and the diagnosis of various phenomena, are mapped with "leprachology". The intelligent design of the man is only one point.

But you just said this is wrong.

Make up your mind. That's YOUR syllogism up there. YOUR argument.

You claim P1 is true. Why?

The study of the various components of the radio, conditions determined to be met, along with references to the manual on the nature of that frequency, enabling tests to be done and the diagnosis of various phenomena, are mapped with "leprachology". The intelligent design of the man is only one point.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Alive again said:

I'm not familiar with Pascal's Wagner. "Long discredited." Another dismissal. I'm not really presenting you with a plea to believe, I'm asking you to be open. This is offensive?

It is highly offensive because we do have open minds. You seem to think that you have something NEW for us to consider. But you're wrong. You're just presenting claims we have already investigated and found wanting. We aren't dismissing them a priori; we are dismissing them post hoc. And your refusal to even engage those points by offering specific cases for to consider looks like simple laziness on your part.

If you have something meaningful to say, say it. But to just exhort us to keep open minds when you've no clue how many times your completely unoriginal claims have been addressed is grossly insulting.

If you really care, then you're going to do some actual work to engage us. Otherwise you're just the latest in a long long long line of theists with arguments shot down long ago.

Let me give you a counter example. How much patience would you have with the 1001st argument by an atheist the christ was just a bus driver in Cleveland?

Not much, I'll bet.

So if you actually care, engage with specifics. Otherwise we will just write you off as another rude clueless theist.

Nothing to lose, everything to gain. That's pretty dangerous isn't it?

And that's Pascal's Wager.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The study of the various components of the radio, conditions determined to be met, along with references to the manual on the nature of that frequency, enabling tests to be done and the diagnosis of various phenomena, are mapped with "leprachology". The intelligent design of the man is only one point.

Admirable. Now, Greg, you're just about on the cusp of saying something that makes sense.

Let's attach your analogy (the radio thingie) to the real world. Help me out here: in the real world, the radio waves correspond to God; the radio corresponds to Man; what do the other things correspond to? Just fill in the blanks:

the various components of the radio correspond to ________________________

conditions determined to be met correspond to _________________________

to the manual on the nature of that frequency corresponds to ________________

enabling tests to be done correspond to _______________________________

the diagnosis of various phenomena correspond to _______________________

 

[Jig]

Science cannot be associated with God. Plain and simple.

This is why you can't use it as a viable reason to reject God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I still want to know what "leprachology" is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is why you can't use it as a viable reason to reject God.

Perhaps, but the problem is that there's no reason to "inject" God into consideration. If science can't support the existence of God, then there's no clear reason why God's existence should even be considered.


eudaimonia,

Mark