FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Science
Science
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately politics and religion try to do science"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit." Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ...  another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately politics and religion try to do science" Took the words from my mouth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Magnets - How do they work?" Well there's 2 poles and a field....imagine what happens next  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit." No innit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist "Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist "Science is actually a method of obtaining robust data | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other "I'd be very comfortable with Scientific methods can obtain very robust data Philosophy can use the robust data to add depth and reason No idea where religion fits in It exists but only conflicts with the other 2 The other 2 imo can be effectively used to suggest the basis of religion has zero to do with any creator and everything to do with the human brain Xxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist "Then who the f*ck took scotch egg!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends what religion you refer to. Some of the ancient religions actually coincide better with science than the modern popular Abrahamic religions. " Dont agree Science is a method of extracting data without any prejudice Religion is belief with zero data  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Then who the f*ck took scotch egg!? "Truth be told using existant data Although I see zero data to suggest a big white fury primate does exist I see lots of data that tells me an albino primate could have existed So I have zero belief in the yeti however I reason its past existence plausible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately politics and religion try to do science" Fucking hell I thought for a good minute for an answer and gave up so kudos to you for a great reply. T | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth." Nothing is ever without bias. Data can be manipulated (deliberately or inadvertently), including by the questions we ask. People can be swayed by pet theories or the need to produce a positive result. People screw up! (and some people lie) I don't believe in "science" or "scientists". But for me it's a bit like democracy - it's the least worst method we have to arrive somewhere towards truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth." I was very very clear Scientific method aims to eliminate human bias Humans who practise science and their conclusions are absolutely not without bias | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. Nothing is ever without bias. Data can be manipulated (deliberately or inadvertently), including by the questions we ask. People can be swayed by pet theories or the need to produce a positive result. People screw up! (and some people lie) I don't believe in "science" or "scientists". But for me it's a bit like democracy - it's the least worst method we have to arrive somewhere towards truth." Exactly Scientific method for me is the difference between; Every time John sneezes he looks up and sees a rabbit in the clouds He believes the cloud rabbit causes the sneeze Scientific method would be there to test the theory giving data that is as "clean" as possible A magnet is said to improve balance There is a robust scientific method to test this theory without prejudice It's an absolute fact bad science is practiced by so called scientists and then used to dismiss science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. Nothing is ever without bias. Data can be manipulated (deliberately or inadvertently), including by the questions we ask. People can be swayed by pet theories or the need to produce a positive result. People screw up! (and some people lie) I don't believe in "science" or "scientists". But for me it's a bit like democracy - it's the least worst method we have to arrive somewhere towards truth. Exactly Scientific method for me is the difference between; Every time John sneezes he looks up and sees a rabbit in the clouds He believes the cloud rabbit causes the sneeze Scientific method would be there to test the theory giving data that is as "clean" as possible A magnet is said to improve balance There is a robust scientific method to test this theory without prejudice It's an absolute fact bad science is practiced by so called scientists and then used to dismiss science " Exactly. And some scientist might have a pet rabbit theory, and so might prioritise any noise in the data (inadvertently or deliberately) in their study. But peer review happens, and as long as there are enough scientists who don't have a pet rabbit theory, the original scientist will be called out for screwing up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. Nothing is ever without bias. Data can be manipulated (deliberately or inadvertently), including by the questions we ask. People can be swayed by pet theories or the need to produce a positive result. People screw up! (and some people lie) I don't believe in "science" or "scientists". But for me it's a bit like democracy - it's the least worst method we have to arrive somewhere towards truth. Exactly Scientific method for me is the difference between; Every time John sneezes he looks up and sees a rabbit in the clouds He believes the cloud rabbit causes the sneeze Scientific method would be there to test the theory giving data that is as "clean" as possible A magnet is said to improve balance There is a robust scientific method to test this theory without prejudice It's an absolute fact bad science is practiced by so called scientists and then used to dismiss science Exactly. And some scientist might have a pet rabbit theory, and so might prioritise any noise in the data (inadvertently or deliberately) in their study. But peer review happens, and as long as there are enough scientists who don't have a pet rabbit theory, the original scientist will be called out for screwing up." Exactly lol Noisy data of course exists but by reading the study it's all overt omissions or errors can be corrected and controlled for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Magnets - How do they work?" No idea but I'm feeling attracted to your ass | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. I was very very clear Scientific method aims to eliminate human bias Humans who practise science and their conclusions are absolutely not without bias " I know science likes to re test but you don't have to say what I said in different words to make it look as if we disagree somewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Magnets - How do they work?" Ask Richard feynman | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other "No! Science doesn't do politics or religion its not intertwined all all ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist "Really? And the earth is flat right ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Science is actually a method of obtaining robust data "DNA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Then who the f*ck took scotch egg!?
We are 1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee
Truth be told using existant data
Although I see zero data to suggest a big white fury primate does exist I see lots of data that tells me an albino primate could have existed
So I have zero belief in the yeti however I reason its past existence plausible
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other
No! Science doesn't do politics or religion its not intertwined all all !
"Depends who is footing the bill  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Empirical science is far different from theoretical science. Just saying.. " Bullying overrawing threatening Spiritual religion and Pseudoscience think they know science. They know nothing but taking your money and time wasted Mother nature and the planet shows us the answers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't do politics or religion" It shouldn't. But it often does.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other
No! Science doesn't do politics or religion its not intertwined all all !
Depends who is footing the bill "Religion already has the money from bullying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't do politics or religion It shouldn't. But it often does. "It's disgusting and disgusts me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth." Exactly. And now we know 'observing the experiment alters the outcome' well all bets are off lol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other
No! Science doesn't do politics or religion its not intertwined all all !
"Hmm. Science is a way of trying to make sense of the world. So are religion and to a degree politics. The connection is increasingly tenuous as we know more about the world. But they're not entirely discrete. People and their thinking are messy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. Exactly. And now we know 'observing the experiment alters the outcome' well all bets are off lol!" But ! religion and politics says they knows already. They know nothing  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth." The whole point of science is questioning. What the people who bash science don't realise is that questioning "old" science as new information comes to light is how science works; it's not the same as trying to cast doubt on science just becuase you don't like the answers it gives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other
No! Science doesn't do politics or religion its not intertwined all all !
Hmm. Science is a way of trying to make sense of the world. So are religion and to a degree politics.
The connection is increasingly tenuous as we know more about the world. But they're not entirely discrete. People and their thinking are messy."Brainwashed by threatening Overrawing bullying behaviour from all side's. Religion linked with Politics Im not surprised alot of people can't work this out and are confused | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist "Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might. Science remains open to new evidence though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. The whole point of science is questioning. What the people who bash science don't realise is that questioning "old" science as new information comes to light is how science works; it's not the same as trying to cast doubt on science just becuase you don't like the answers it gives." Bravo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science " Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. Exactly. And now we know 'observing the experiment alters the outcome' well all bets are off lol! But ! religion and politics says they knows already. They know nothing "Lol, do you understand the irony of that statement?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please, to suggest that scientists are without bias is blindness. Science attempts to be bias free and collect robust data but it's only robust until the next piece of data comes along and blasts a big fat hole in an exsisting theory. I'm all for science but it isn't unquestionable truth. Exactly. And now we know 'observing the experiment alters the outcome' well all bets are off lol! But ! religion and politics says they knows already. They know nothing
Lol, do you understand the irony of that statement? "It's selfish egos we are in this mess! Sorry im not doing ironing  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!"Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends what religion you refer to. Some of the ancient religions actually coincide better with science than the modern popular Abrahamic religions. Dont agree Science is a method of extracting data without any prejudice Religion is belief with zero data "That's plain ignorance of ancient religions. They based their beliefs upon observations of the sky and material world. Aztecs & Mayans had the maths/geometry and Hinduism has a lot on cosmology. Even Carl Sagan has said the Vedic texts correspond to modern scientific theories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact !" It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact !" That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
"I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability Same with any God concepts A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely A benevolent one one can rule out completely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist " Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. " People are frightened of the truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely "Science is ever closer to finding the answers to questions! Religion and Pseudoscience is so far away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly." Then you are useless in your opinions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Then who the f*ck took scotch egg!? "That would be the Picnic Monster, obvs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly." Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Science is actually a method of obtaining robust data "You may need to work on your chat up lines, Sheldon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. " I don't need religion to help people! I help people because i like people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. " Depends on the audience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. " I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid " I’ve come to the conclusion you are not a scientist , probably never had a conversation with one and don’t know much about anything ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. Depends on the audience " Humans once again come in and fuck things up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one." Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. Depends on the audience Humans once again come in and fuck things up "Yes and 1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid I’ve come to the conclusion you are not a scientist , probably never had a conversation with one and don’t know much about anything ! " I'm not a scientist but have been involved in high level (non science) research. I think everyone necessarily extrapolates or hypothesises from incomplete data. The nature of the extrapolation will depend on the field and the nature of data that can be collected. Quantitative, qualitative, other (I want to say literary as a third category? It's sort of even less numbers based than qualitative research but must be its own category in some ways); the confounding effects; the amount of data that's missing; acceptable boundaries for error. There's extrapolation that's likely to be more robust than others in certain circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid I’ve come to the conclusion you are not a scientist , probably never had a conversation with one and don’t know much about anything ! " My opinion of you is that you have been indoctrinated by some sort of cult and probably believe in star signs to! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down " I'm not denying your experience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down I'm not denying your experience." It’s almost like saying - because a certain belief they’ll try influence the results... You can believe what you want, as long as it doesn’t effect the end results. Everything has its place in this world, as is everyone’s entitled to believe what they want. I’d also agree with the above statement, science is used as the starting point but it’s normally used as a stepping stone to finish the result. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid I’ve come to the conclusion you are not a scientist , probably never had a conversation with one and don’t know much about anything ! I'm not a scientist but have been involved in high level (non science) research. I think everyone necessarily extrapolates or hypothesises from incomplete data. The nature of the extrapolation will depend on the field and the nature of data that can be collected. Quantitative, qualitative, other (I want to say literary as a third category? It's sort of even less numbers based than qualitative research but must be its own category in some ways); the confounding effects; the amount of data that's missing; acceptable boundaries for error. There's extrapolation that's likely to be more robust than others in certain circumstances." Many people don't know anything about science and that's such a shame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down I'm not denying your experience. It’s almost like saying - because a certain belief they’ll try influence the results... You can believe what you want, as long as it doesn’t effect the end results. Everything has its place in this world, as is everyone’s entitled to believe what they want. I’d also agree with the above statement, science is used as the starting point but it’s normally used as a stepping stone to finish the result. " Religion can be a cause of harm. I also don't think it's necessarily a great way to determine objective truth. But the fact that religion can cause harm doesn't mean that it's a bad way of determining truth. We need to keep these things separate to maintain credibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely "Not if he gave us complete authority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down I'm not denying your experience. It’s almost like saying - because a certain belief they’ll try influence the results... You can believe what you want, as long as it doesn’t effect the end results. Everything has its place in this world, as is everyone’s entitled to believe what they want. I’d also agree with the above statement, science is used as the starting point but it’s normally used as a stepping stone to finish the result. " You can not be president of America unless you have a backing from a faith! How does that effect millions of peoples lifes! With lies Indoctrinating bullying threatening children has to stop! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. " The same can be said of any spiritual quest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down I'm not denying your experience. It’s almost like saying - because a certain belief they’ll try influence the results... You can believe what you want, as long as it doesn’t effect the end results. Everything has its place in this world, as is everyone’s entitled to believe what they want. I’d also agree with the above statement, science is used as the starting point but it’s normally used as a stepping stone to finish the result. You can not be president of America unless you have a backing from a faith! How does that effect millions of peoples lifes! With lies Indoctrinating bullying threatening children has to stop!" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority. "Humanists can make the right decisions without religion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's all just theories, innit. Precisely. Science, religion , politics all intertwined if you Philosophise about it ... another branch that cannot deny the existence and use of the other
I'd be very comfortable with
Scientific methods can obtain very robust data
Philosophy can use the robust data to add depth and reason
No idea where religion fits in
It exists but only conflicts with the other 2
The other 2 imo can be effectively used to suggest the basis of religion has zero to do with any creator and everything to do with the human brain
Xxx"Exactly this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. The same can be said of any spiritual quest." Indeed it can That's why I say scientific method is there to provide robust data Data is NOT an answer but the more robust data one has then using sound logic more robust conclusions can be formed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. " Nonsense, it can be purely theoretical and 100% wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad." Of course it can, it’s depending on what version of it you get. I’ll take one of the fastest growing in the world, Muslims. The idea itself is all about peace & love. But it’s altered through time to extreme certain beliefs. Same with every religion - it’s just what you choose to believe and what you don’t. It’s a personal choice down to the individual. It all falls down to the individuals, you can’t blame anything on others. Everyone has a choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. The same can be said of any spiritual quest. Indeed it can That's why I say scientific method is there to provide robust data Data is NOT an answer but the more robust data one has then using sound logic more robust conclusions can be formed " Data are tools. The collection of the data can be fucked up, the interpretation of the data can be fucked up, the communication of the data can be fucked up. Science *hopefully* checks for and reduces the fucking up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down I'm not denying your experience. It’s almost like saying - because a certain belief they’ll try influence the results... You can believe what you want, as long as it doesn’t effect the end results. Everything has its place in this world, as is everyone’s entitled to believe what they want. I’d also agree with the above statement, science is used as the starting point but it’s normally used as a stepping stone to finish the result. You can not be president of America unless you have a backing from a faith! How does that effect millions of peoples lifes! With lies Indoctrinating bullying threatening children has to stop! Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad." All religion poisons everything. Belittles women and children and assumes a creator a third person Sacrifices animals by the thousands and then takes your money charity! Rubbish | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. Nonsense, it can be purely theoretical and 100% wrong." Like what? The Big Bang? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad. Of course it can, it’s depending on what version of it you get. I’ll take one of the fastest growing in the world, Muslims. The idea itself is all about peace & love. But it’s altered through time to extreme certain beliefs. Same with every religion - it’s just what you choose to believe and what you don’t. It’s a personal choice down to the individual. It all falls down to the individuals, you can’t blame anything on others. Everyone has a choice" I think we agree, given what you've said? Despite my low opinion of religion, despite my atheism, I'm saying "let's not just say it's all bad" Even if I were an antitheist (have those leanings occasionally), it's not a desperately credible argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. I have a pretty low opinion of religion in general, I will say, but I think the dogmatism (not you) of saying it's great or it sucks helps no one. Not true im bullied by religion everyday! And fear is hereditary passed down I'm not denying your experience. It’s almost like saying - because a certain belief they’ll try influence the results... You can believe what you want, as long as it doesn’t effect the end results. " Hahaha, ever heard of Quantum Theory? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. The same can be said of any spiritual quest. Indeed it can That's why I say scientific method is there to provide robust data Data is NOT an answer but the more robust data one has then using sound logic more robust conclusions can be formed " Agreed, even though many scientific notions get disproved as more data becomes available progress can never be made if we do not act upon the data we have in our hands now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religion poisons everything. Belittles women and children and assumes a creator a third person Sacrifices animals by the thousands and then takes your money charity! Rubbish " ... and this is why absolute statements are rarely a good idea. Because this is demonstrably false. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad. Of course it can, it’s depending on what version of it you get. I’ll take one of the fastest growing in the world, Muslims. The idea itself is all about peace & love. But it’s altered through time to extreme certain beliefs. Same with every religion - it’s just what you choose to believe and what you don’t. It’s a personal choice down to the individual. It all falls down to the individuals, you can’t blame anything on others. Everyone has a choice" When was the last humanist terror attack heard about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. The same can be said of any spiritual quest. Indeed it can That's why I say scientific method is there to provide robust data Data is NOT an answer but the more robust data one has then using sound logic more robust conclusions can be formed Data are tools. The collection of the data can be fucked up, the interpretation of the data can be fucked up, the communication of the data can be fucked up. Science *hopefully* checks for and reduces the fucking up." ^^ Exactly, data is a tool used to help guide a decision. I use it daily to make decisions.... without it I wouldn’t make certain decisions - although it all falls down to the quality of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
Humanists can make the right decisions without religion "Irrelevent. And subjective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religion poisons everything. Belittles women and children and assumes a creator a third person Sacrifices animals by the thousands and then takes your money charity! Rubbish ... and this is why absolute statements are rarely a good idea. Because this is demonstrably false." Really open your eye's Or are we sticking to (God) save the queen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
Humanists can make the right decisions without religion
Irrelevent. And subjective. "but true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The equivocation between scientific theory and the colloquial meaning of theory is very much part of the problem." Exactly what she said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad. Of course it can, it’s depending on what version of it you get. I’ll take one of the fastest growing in the world, Muslims. The idea itself is all about peace & love. But it’s altered through time to extreme certain beliefs. Same with every religion - it’s just what you choose to believe and what you don’t. It’s a personal choice down to the individual. It all falls down to the individuals, you can’t blame anything on others. Everyone has a choice When was the last humanist terror attack heard about?" Humanist is based on individuals beliefs if I’m not mistaken? Like I said, falls down to the individual.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religion poisons everything. Belittles women and children and assumes a creator a third person Sacrifices animals by the thousands and then takes your money charity! Rubbish ... and this is why absolute statements are rarely a good idea. Because this is demonstrably false. Really open your eye's Or are we sticking to (God) save the queen " Would've voted to form a republic in Australia but alas I was thirteen. Am an atheist. Try again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad. Of course it can, it’s depending on what version of it you get. I’ll take one of the fastest growing in the world, Muslims. The idea itself is all about peace & love. But it’s altered through time to extreme certain beliefs. Same with every religion - it’s just what you choose to believe and what you don’t. It’s a personal choice down to the individual. It all falls down to the individuals, you can’t blame anything on others. Everyone has a choice When was the last humanist terror attack heard about? Humanist is based on individuals beliefs if I’m not mistaken? Like I said, falls down to the individual.. " Being a humanist is not a belief it's part of nature and in you and i Nothing to do with faith! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science is the pursuit of answers and the discovery of more questions. The same can be said of any spiritual quest. Indeed it can That's why I say scientific method is there to provide robust data Data is NOT an answer but the more robust data one has then using sound logic more robust conclusions can be formed Data are tools. The collection of the data can be fucked up, the interpretation of the data can be fucked up, the communication of the data can be fucked up. Science *hopefully* checks for and reduces the fucking up. ^^ Exactly, data is a tool used to help guide a decision. I use it daily to make decisions.... without it I wouldn’t make certain decisions - although it all falls down to the quality of it. " But scientific method allows one to determine the quality And to modify the method to control the quality when an omission is noted Good science data should be repeatable and under constant scrutiny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid I’ve come to the conclusion you are not a scientist , probably never had a conversation with one and don’t know much about anything ! I'm not a scientist but have been involved in high level (non science) research. I think everyone necessarily extrapolates or hypothesises from incomplete data. The nature of the extrapolation will depend on the field and the nature of data that can be collected. Quantitative, qualitative, other (I want to say literary as a third category? It's sort of even less numbers based than qualitative research but must be its own category in some ways); the confounding effects; the amount of data that's missing; acceptable boundaries for error. There's extrapolation that's likely to be more robust than others in certain circumstances." You clearly don’t understand the scientific method. Hypothesis, synthesis and generation of new idea requires extrapolation and biases are handled through the method , good research is peer reviewed and published and the scientist knows and put measures in to deal with conscious and un conscious bias. Action based research in industry delivers proven solutions, it’s used extensively across all sectors now, I have personally been a KTP after graduating and recruited dozens over the last 20 years to solve all kinds of problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! It’s not true - research was done and shows between 25 and 55 percent of scientists are religious depending on country. It’s a myth, not a fact that scientists are mostly atheist. An atheist has a closed mind, a flaw in science, an agnostic has a more open mind and makes a better scientist Rubbish ive done my research do yours! A scientist doesn't fill gaps up with fairy stories or God's ! That would make him or her look stupid I’ve come to the conclusion you are not a scientist , probably never had a conversation with one and don’t know much about anything ! I'm not a scientist but have been involved in high level (non science) research. I think everyone necessarily extrapolates or hypothesises from incomplete data. The nature of the extrapolation will depend on the field and the nature of data that can be collected. Quantitative, qualitative, other (I want to say literary as a third category? It's sort of even less numbers based than qualitative research but must be its own category in some ways); the confounding effects; the amount of data that's missing; acceptable boundaries for error. There's extrapolation that's likely to be more robust than others in certain circumstances. You clearly don’t understand the scientific method. Hypothesis, synthesis and generation of new idea requires extrapolation and biases are handled through the method , good research is peer reviewed and published and the scientist knows and put measures in to deal with conscious and un conscious bias. Action based research in industry delivers proven solutions, it’s used extensively across all sectors now, I have personally been a KTP after graduating and recruited dozens over the last 20 years to solve all kinds of problems " I'm not sure how what I said was incompatible with what you said. I'm not a scientist, nor did I ever claim to be one, and I am talking to research in general. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mankind's application of science, religion and politics has brought about amazing achievements. Conversely its brought much misery. If people can't look objectively at the whole picture, then generally they're introducing personal bias. THATS where it goes wrong." People be people and are not always rational sadly, roll on the day our AI overlords take control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Im not religious or a scientist but fascinated with the reasonings of both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. Nonsense, it can be purely theoretical and 100% wrong. Like what? The Big Bang? " Hawking totally revised his most famous theories just before he died didn't he? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't science just lead us down the path that life and existence is pretty miraculous with such a low probablility of it all being an accident. It sort of takes us towards there having to be some sort of start to it all, whilst no one would think it is a sweet bearded old man sitting on a cloud, it has to be something, there is always a beginning
Im not religious or a scientist but fascinated with the reasonings of both. "I've just been on a bike ride along the coast, and heading to sit on the beach watching waves and having a surf. That's when I realise its all ace regardless, and the doom strollers aren't really worth listening to. Be a good human thats all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority. "IF it existed It designed viruses and parasites Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted That's never benevolent it is sadistic Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
Humanists can make the right decisions without religion
Irrelevent. And subjective. but true "Religious people can make the right decisions without humanism. So what? Irrelevent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
"You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
Humanists can make the right decisions without religion
Irrelevent. And subjective. "No untrue What was clearly stated was an atheist CAN not does can make good moral decision Meaning the statement that religion gives us our morals is untrue Absolutely in all cases morals can be subjective and absolutely no religion shows it holds a non subjective absolute morality | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't science just lead us down the path that life and existence is pretty miraculous with such a low probablility of it all being an accident. It sort of takes us towards there having to be some sort of start to it all, whilst no one would think it is a sweet bearded old man sitting on a cloud, it has to be something, there is always a beginning
Im not religious or a scientist but fascinated with the reasonings of both.
I've just been on a bike ride along the coast, and heading to sit on the beach watching waves and having a surf.
That's when I realise its all ace regardless, and the doom strollers aren't really worth listening to. Be a good human thats all "Sounds like heaven  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions. "No I dont I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong No assumptions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. " Indeed, but science and maths are still quite different. Maths exists with reference to itself and thus is absolute, inviolate truth - 2 + 2 IS 4 because it's defined that way. Science is defined by reference to the universe. We THINK that the force of gravity on Earth is 9.81 N/kg, but it's not inviolate. For all we know, there's a completely unknown other force providing the 9.8 and gravity only does 0.01. But all the evidence suggests that's not the case, so we accept 9.81 N/kg until someone comes along with some new evidence (and with something that established, it had better be some seriously compelling evidence!). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
Humanists can make the right decisions without religion
Irrelevent. And subjective.
No untrue
What was clearly stated was an atheist CAN not does can make good moral decision
Meaning the statement that religion gives us our morals is untrue
"No-one made that statement did they? I never saw it anywhere.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions "You watch all the results in a science experiment, even when the results go off at a tangent and arent what was expected even if they ultimately are destructive. And write it all in a little notebook and do it again. Things arent created just to just be nice, but to see what actually can happen. You can have life but these are all the different scenarios that can be brought about from that life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions "Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start. Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall. You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
"All knowing rules out evolved suffering The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen An ultimate creator does not hope it designed It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
"I fully understand the contradictory nonsensical fudged myth thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
"And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail. Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow? Subjective choice IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
I fully understand the contradictory nonsensical fudged myth thanks "It is apparent you do not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO."I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm It also still does not explain or excuse parasites The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so Also I if a parent would not know the outcome If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil The creator in the myth always knows the outcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
"Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too! Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science evolves more like evolution. It's based upon man's understanding and interpretation based upon assumptions and theories. Some facts are finally stumbled upon. They were always there, man hadnt understood them partly because some contradicted his earlier assumptions. Man knowledge expands and sometimes we get knowledge, facts and assumptions muddled up in our quest. If we say something enough, we assume it's right as it becomes further detached from the truth, soon it becomes assumed truth. " Indeed so.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so."Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn In the creator myth Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent it also specifically designed the human to always do as the serpent it designed said Then as designed only 2 faulty humans triggered a pre designed chain reaction where the children of the delebertly designed faulty humans would not learn from the parents design fault but would be tortured perpetually Not only that The creator pretending to clear the slate slaughters and drowns almost everything on the planet despite animals having no part in the original erm apple eating gosh I mean sin So back to square one Apart from creator has made certain that the humans will indeed slaughter themselves It specifically designs an error causing some humans to lose all rational thought self control and murder and rap e Not content with absolutely ensuring this will happen upon a false pretence of "free will" ( hormones often interfere with erm free will as do errors in genetic coding) so not all bad is freely willly it would need to have been specifically designed knowing the outcome Then finally Back to free will a 1 year old girl is rap ed by a faulty human the fault by the omnipotent was carefully and meticulously planned the same for the 1 year old who is tortured by malaria Using the hilarious and twisted human invented myth the creator it depicts if true could only ever have sadistic in its definition You may feel we could not know the mind of a creator I think we have a fair amount of data to have a stab Fortunately for my psychological well being I do not have to suffer this internal ambivalence and conflict I can understand that what we experience was not designed and the work of evolution is the soul causation  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it interesting that people with so limited understanding and knowledge seem to think they can speak for the voice and mind of someone so infinitely above them. Example their creator. To speak with such confidence of knowledge and tell others that they shouldn't make assumptions is mind boggling. Yes disagree and make assumptions as there is nothing wrong making assumptions as that is exactly how everyone learns, but what's very wrong is assuming your assumptions are right and another's is wrong. The debate is lost when this happens and no-one learns from other ideas, no growth, no development, just entrenched arrogance and stagnation. Maybe its worth asking maybe just maybe I'm wrong and be open to what another's eyes and experiences have told them. Being wrong isn't bad, denying it is, learning from it displace intelligence." *Displays. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it interesting that people with so limited understanding and knowledge seem to think they can speak for the voice and mind of someone so infinitely above them. Example their creator. To speak with such confidence of knowledge and tell others that they shouldn't make assumptions is mind boggling. Yes disagree and make assumptions as there is nothing wrong making assumptions as that is exactly how everyone learns, but what's very wrong is assuming your assumptions are right and another's is wrong. The debate is lost when this happens and no-one learns from other ideas, no growth, no development, just entrenched arrogance and stagnation. Maybe its worth asking maybe just maybe I'm wrong and be open to what another's eyes and experiences have told them. Being wrong isn't bad, denying it is, learning from it displace intelligence." I think we need to interrogate notions such as creators, which can be created, exploited, etc for sociopolitical gain. How one does that is of course another matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science & Maths. Stuff that can’t be bullshitted without evidence. Nonsense, it can be purely theoretical and 100% wrong. Like what? The Big Bang? Hawking totally revised his most famous theories just before he died didn't he?" Science is getting closer to the answers everyday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it interesting that people with so limited understanding and knowledge seem to think they can speak for the voice and mind of someone so infinitely above them. Example their creator. To speak with such confidence of knowledge and tell others that they shouldn't make assumptions is mind boggling. Yes disagree and make assumptions as there is nothing wrong making assumptions as that is exactly how everyone learns, but what's very wrong is assuming your assumptions are right and another's is wrong. The debate is lost when this happens and no-one learns from other ideas, no growth, no development, just entrenched arrogance and stagnation. Maybe its worth asking maybe just maybe I'm wrong and be open to what another's eyes and experiences have told them. Being wrong isn't bad, denying it is, learning from it displace intelligence. I think we need to interrogate notions such as creators, which can be created, exploited, etc for sociopolitical gain. How one does that is of course another matter." It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They're all mixed. Ppl what don't know science try to hold it up as something amazing and pure, but science is driven by politics and commercialism just as much as politics is driven by science. Sounds to me like too many folk spend too much time in twitter, innit...." Science will kill you if don'tunderstandScience. Politics will send you to war in the name of a Religion! Killing you that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it interesting that people with so limited understanding and knowledge seem to think they can speak for the voice and mind of someone so infinitely above them. Example their creator. To speak with such confidence of knowledge and tell others that they shouldn't make assumptions is mind boggling. Yes disagree and make assumptions as there is nothing wrong making assumptions as that is exactly how everyone learns, but what's very wrong is assuming your assumptions are right and another's is wrong. The debate is lost when this happens and no-one learns from other ideas, no growth, no development, just entrenched arrogance and stagnation. Maybe its worth asking maybe just maybe I'm wrong and be open to what another's eyes and experiences have told them. Being wrong isn't bad, denying it is, learning from it displace intelligence. I think we need to interrogate notions such as creators, which can be created, exploited, etc for sociopolitical gain. How one does that is of course another matter. It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse " That's your opinion and I'll accept it, but when someone says categorically otherwise then I call bs, because they don't know other than their own small amount of reading, usually driven by some negative experience and therefore not objective. There is much science which isn't as objective as we'd like to think it is and anything that appears to challenge something is often ignored argued against without the the objectiveness it should display. Much of the science surrounding covid has been manipulated and twisted for political gain. This has resulted in false information being fed, consumed and digested. It's very hard to distinguish what are the true facts anymore. And bingo we are where they want us to be, confused,conflicting and at their mercy. A critical open mind is frowned upon by most because it will question the status quo in order to find the truth. This upsets many who base their beliefs on the status quo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent ......."As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect: "You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire." So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a couple of leading scientists , top of their game in pharmacology and bioinformatics , heavily published and both have a strong religious faith, in fact it drives thier research into cancer. Agree re politics, ideology , particularly religious ideology is dangerous in politics , but not science Very few scientists are religious and that's a fact ! That may or may not be true, and I consider it irrelevant. I consider religion on its merits or lack thereof. I consider science similarly. Exactly - most people only see the negatives, and there are many, mostly bigots using no religious ideology as an excuse, but they don’t realise about schools, hospitals, global aid , rescue, even how food-banks were stared . It’s rare for atheism to drive sacrificial generosity on such huge scale but it happens, kindness and generosity is by no means exclusive to faith communities, but when you look globally and historically , the fact is that vast numbers of people do things for others because of faith, whereas humanist / socialist people push the responsibility for care to the state. " The problem with this argument is that it works the other way too. Religion has been the excuse for much human cruelty and many people blame religion for it. The truth is 'religion' isn't responsible for anything, people either want to help others or harm them and if they happen to be religious they'll use their beliefs as reasoning for their behavoir. Given that even today religion is widespread it isn't surprising that you can find many examples of good deeds done in the name of faith and use this as a basis for starting that faith is good. Equally, it is no surprise that people like Dawkins and Harris can find endless examples of harm done in the name of various religions and use this to argue religion is bad. Both arguments are wrong and without logical basis. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it interesting that people with so limited understanding and knowledge seem to think they can speak for the voice and mind of someone so infinitely above them. Example their creator. To speak with such confidence of knowledge and tell others that they shouldn't make assumptions is mind boggling. Yes disagree and make assumptions as there is nothing wrong making assumptions as that is exactly how everyone learns, but what's very wrong is assuming your assumptions are right and another's is wrong. The debate is lost when this happens and no-one learns from other ideas, no growth, no development, just entrenched arrogance and stagnation. Maybe its worth asking maybe just maybe I'm wrong and be open to what another's eyes and experiences have told them. Being wrong isn't bad, denying it is, learning from it displace intelligence. I think we need to interrogate notions such as creators, which can be created, exploited, etc for sociopolitical gain. How one does that is of course another matter. It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse " I have no great issue with beliefs I'm fully aware it's an innately human trait to see patterns and fill in huge gaps (Peer reviewed scientific method to illuste these facts optional illusions to name one of thousands) I do struggle to understand such deep ingrained beliefs when zero collaborative data exists and vast reams of conflicting God gave us free will is one such thing It's a made up guess hoping to deflect from God the sadistic When referring to the soul and ghosts gosh all the detail of why and how is simply made up then believed zero evidence trail to confirm that for example " ghosts are lost soul with un finished business " Or ghosts dont like peanuts Pure fabrication and clearly evidently so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case."That's just nonsensical double talk Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt That's not perfect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse " I think these extremes lack credibility, and I'm sorry you feel the need to call an ally names, in effect, over the introduction of nuance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case."But, ooooooh, hang on if I were to disagree with that it proves your point, it demonstrates my pride, and a fallen state and I have little argument, because then I'm arguing out of an arrogance, a belief that I couldn't be wrong. Which is if I'm not mistaken the position that the serpent fell too. When one argues out of arrogance then one can no long think critically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect "Or that your opinion of not being perfect, found upon a limited understanding of what perfect entails. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case."And yet you ignore the fact that according to your theory a creator perpetually tortures not the perpetrator of the single sin but its offspring As you noted the benevolent teacher uses errors as a teaching method My friends child had one square of chocolate more than I said she could I now kick her dog every time I see her How daft is that ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse I think these extremes lack credibility, and I'm sorry you feel the need to call an ally names, in effect, over the introduction of nuance." Your replies on this thread have been brilliant. Thank you. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
But, ooooooh, hang on if I were to disagree with that it proves your point, it demonstrates my pride, and a fallen state and I have little argument, because then I'm arguing out of an arrogance, a belief that I couldn't be wrong. Which is if I'm not mistaken the position that the serpent fell too.
When one argues out of arrogance then one can no long think critically."Like i said before we are 1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse I think these extremes lack credibility, and I'm sorry you feel the need to call an ally names, in effect, over the introduction of nuance. Your replies on this thread have been brilliant. Thank you. Mr" Appreciate it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
Or that your opinion of not being perfect, found upon a limited understanding of what perfect entails."Ok I'll suggest perfect means will not corrupt into a state that facilitates the torture of millions of innocent children In the myth The serpent was designed The outcome was predetermined before its existence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
And yet you ignore the fact that according to your theory a creator perpetually tortures not the perpetrator of the single sin but its offspring
As you noted the benevolent teacher uses errors as a teaching method
My friends child had one square of chocolate more than I said she could
I now kick her dog every time I see her
How daft is that ?"Monkey sees monkey does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect "You have a perfect understanding of perfection how, do you believe you are perfect? It was not designed as a serpent, but an angel of light. So, we are left with two conclusions (among others): 1 The entire universe was created by an malevolent entity 2 Your understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete and quite possibly deeply flawed. Being as how I know one of these two statements is definitely true, I can see why a betting man might put his money on the other!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
You have a perfect understanding of perfection how, do you believe you are perfect?
It was not designed as a serpent, but an angel of light.
So, we are left with two conclusions (among others):
1 The entire universe was created by an malevolent entity
2 Your understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete and quite possibly deeply flawed.
Being as how I know one of these two statements is definitely true, I can see why a betting man might put his money on the other!! "3 no creator You're right 3 is absolutely the most plausible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect "Which creator? There's been 3,000 God's written about by man! 1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
You have a perfect understanding of perfection how, do you believe you are perfect?
It was not designed as a serpent, but an angel of light.
So, we are left with two conclusions (among others):
1 The entire universe was created by an malevolent entity
2 Your understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete and quite possibly deeply flawed.
Being as how I know one of these two statements is definitely true, I can see why a betting man might put his money on the other!! "Know Now we all know that's untrue as do you , simply provoking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
Which creator? There's been 3,000 God's written about by man!
1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee "Exactly btw At least 3000 creator myths at very least 2999 are without doubt human fabrication The money goes on all of them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's just one huge medieval religious nonsense! A Scam and i find myself involved or subscribed into something i didn't have a choice to be in !! ( God )save the queen my arse I think these extremes lack credibility, and I'm sorry you feel the need to call an ally names, in effect, over the introduction of nuance. Your replies on this thread have been brilliant. Thank you. Mr Appreciate it "Thanks but i don't need your sympathy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
And yet you ignore the fact that according to your theory a creator perpetually tortures not the perpetrator of the single sin but its offspring
"Not my theory sweetpea. Again you display a lack of logic and understanding of the argument - if the child ignores it's parents advice, runs away to sea, never contacts them again, goes to Thailand and becomes a drug addict, tortures and eventually kills himself - are the parents 'perpetually torturing' him because they did not lock him in the basement to keep him safe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
Which creator? There's been 3,000 God's written about by man!
1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee
Exactly btw
At least 3000 creator myths at very least 2999 are without doubt human fabrication
The money goes on all of them"And for every mythical concept there is a human who Aherm "knows" they are right Looking in it's crazy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
Which creator? There's been 3,000 God's written about by man!
1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee
Exactly btw
At least 3000 creator myths at very least 2999 are without doubt human fabrication
The money goes on all of them"So your an atheist ! you don't believe in any other god except yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Magnets - How do they work?" A natural force We should harness it more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Magnets - How do they work? A natural force We should harness it more "That's called mother nature and science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
You have a perfect understanding of perfection how, do you believe you are perfect?
It was not designed as a serpent, but an angel of light.
So, we are left with two conclusions (among others):
1 The entire universe was created by an malevolent entity
2 Your understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete and quite possibly deeply flawed.
Being as how I know one of these two statements is definitely true, I can see why a betting man might put his money on the other!!
Know
Now we all know that's untrue as do you , simply provoking "No 2 is definitely true, you are not omniscient -do you think you are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
And yet you ignore the fact that according to your theory a creator perpetually tortures not the perpetrator of the single sin but its offspring
Not my theory sweetpea. Again you display a lack of logic and understanding of the argument - if the child ignores it's parents advice, runs away to sea, never contacts them again, goes to Thailand and becomes a drug addict, tortures and eventually kills himself - are the parents 'perpetually torturing' him because they did not lock him in the basement to keep him safe?"Depends if the parents designed the drugs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1 The entire universe was created by an malevolent entity 2 Your understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete and quite possibly deeply flawed. Being as how I know one of these two statements is definitely true, I can see why a betting man might put his money on the other!!
3 no creator
You're right 3 is absolutely the most plausible "Ah, so why are you arguing so vehemently for No 1?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends if the parents designed the drugs " Are drugs not benevolent if used correctly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends if the parents designed the drugs Are drugs not benevolent if used correctly? " Politics and religion! Backed up by the number 1 killer in the world Alcohol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
You have a perfect understanding of perfection how, do you believe you are perfect?
It was not designed as a serpent, but an angel of light.
So, we are left with two conclusions (among others):
1 The entire universe was created by an malevolent entity
2 Your understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete and quite possibly deeply flawed.
Being as how I know one of these two statements is definitely true, I can see why a betting man might put his money on the other!!
Know
Now we all know that's untrue as do you , simply provoking
No 2 is definitely true, you are not omniscient -do you think you are?"My understanding of creation is bound to be sketchy as there is zero data to suggest it happened My knowledge on one book that pretending to depict it is fairly good And are you now admitting your style of christianity is close to that book if so we can have fun ha ha before you have distanced your beliefs from that of that book suggestion you have a personal non or biblical belief system Now great if you want to suggest the text in the ot is that of a real creator let's go through it page by page I may start with Mr bronze age telling us ladies who are monthly are unclean Or why do we no longer stone .... I think The concept of original sin is based upon absolute belief in ot genesis I think it genesis is pretty much accepted as at most a metaphor thus original sin argument disappears I feel it's pretty reasonable dichotomy Genesis or evolution Evolvolution has some fair substance Now what's genesis got ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Science doesn't exist
Sorry I meant the Abominable Snowman. He doesn't exist
Of course the scientific answer is that the abonimable snowman probably doesn't exist, insofar as there's no evidence that he does or reason to suspect that he might.
Science remains open to new evidence though!
Exactly. For instance no true scientist can say God does not exist - only that he is not aware of conclusive evidence.
I cannot prove a tea pot does not orbit a small planet circulating a star in our nearest universe
I can however using robust existing data suggest a possibility a plausibility and a probability
Same with any God concepts
A creator obviously one cannot rule out completely
A benevolent one one can rule out completely
Not if he gave us complete authority.
IF it existed
It designed viruses and parasites
Regardless of our self determination it would have specifically designed pain and suffering beyond self inflicted
That's never benevolent it is sadistic
Its It's also perfectly plausible to suggest such a creator could peacefully design a human without the internal chemicals that produce such hate and violence
IF it existed it specifically designed them to become faulty and have an unsuppressable desire to be unkind in some
It would have been designed to do EXACTLY as it does EXACTY
You misunderstand the propositon, sorry, your argument is based on different assumptions.
No I dont
I say If a creator existed it cannot have benevolent in its definition
You countered suggestion we are responsible not a designer
I illustrate why that logic is not logic and wrong
No assumptions
Yes, there are I am afraid. You are suggesting pathogens and parasites must have been designed from the start.
Others would argue that they were solely the result of the fall.
You need to understand the theory before you can argue against it.
All knowing rules out evolved suffering
The creator will always know the outcome it designed it to happen
An ultimate creator does not hope it designed
It knew what would happen it designed stuff that could evolve to cause suffering after it specifically designed humans to fall
And others would argue that there is no freedom of will without freedom to fail.
Would you be the ultimate parent if you 'arranged it' so your child could never fail, never fall, never hurt himself or others? Or would the ultimate parent allow his child to fail, fall, hurt himself and grow?
Subjective choice IMO.
I think you may find a good parent would facilitate errors but strongly mitigate danger or long term harm
It also still does not explain or excuse parasites
The original creation that would evolve into the paracite was designed specifically to do so
Also I if a parent would not know the outcome
If I sent little Jonathan off to the rock face and made sure I handicapped him and damaged his equipment knowing he would fall I would indeed be evil
The creator in the myth always knows the outcome
Unless he chooses not to?? Do you really think you are onmiscient and able to know all variations of creation? Isn't that a little arrogant? I assume there is more 'under heaven and earth' that I do not understand than that which I do - I think that's the position of all good science too!
Maybe what we see is the result of facilitation and strong mitigation, and as parasites evolved from free living organisms in the first place, I can certainly conceive of a world without harmful parasites - it has been so.
Your parent analogy is also not one of any relevant equivalence
I'd absolutely let Johnny run into nettles be stung and learn
In the creator myth
Creator creates humans and it creates evil manipulative irresistible seducer serpent .......
As I say - you are arguing from a position of ignorance and it does you no credit. Had you done even the most basic research you would have known that in 'the creater myth' the 'serpent' was made perfect:
"You were once the mark of what is perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every stone of great worth covered you: ruby, topaz, diamond, beryl, onyx, jasper, chrysolite, turquoise, and emerald. And you had beautiful objects of gold. They were made for you when you were made. You were the cherub who kept watch, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God. You walked among the stones of fire."
So, it seems perfection can always become corrupted - by pride and arrogance in this case.
That's just nonsensical double talk
Define perfect it appears your definition does not match mine
The creator designed the sepant absolutely knowing it would become corrupt
That's not perfect
Or that your opinion of not being perfect, found upon a limited understanding of what perfect entails.
Ok I'll suggest perfect means will not corrupt into a state that facilitates the torture of millions of innocent children
In the myth The serpent was designed
The outcome was predetermined before its existence "So as that's your interpretation of perfection, you then base all your understanding of something far greater than you upon it. Maybe your interpretation is of limiting perfection simply because you can't comprehend otherwise? I'm just asking critically to my best ability. I definitely don't take for granted that I'm right, all I can take for granted is that I'm learning and others may or may not have a better answer. As soon as I tell someone they are completely wrong because of X,Y or Z then I'm close to tripping over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Religion can do bad things. Some political systems are fucked up. Doesn't mean all religion and politics are always bad. Of course it can, it’s depending on what version of it you get. I’ll take one of the fastest growing in the world, Muslims. The idea itself is all about peace & love. But it’s altered through time to extreme certain beliefs. Same with every religion - it’s just what you choose to believe and what you don’t. It’s a personal choice down to the individual. It all falls down to the individuals, you can’t blame anything on others. Everyone has a choice When was the last humanist terror attack heard about?" Try reading the history of communism in the 20th century - a humanist ideology that has nothing to do with religion (in fact it's openly opposed to it) but it's arguably responsible for more human suffering than all the religious wars of the past 2000 years. I'm not religious, I don't believe in any gods, but I can recognise that blaming religion for human actions is not helpful and only results in further divisions. The issue is human nature which is capable of twisting any idea to cause harm. Until we understand that and stop blaming the ideas we will never resolve the conflicts that ravage humanity. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
And again, you make assumptions about what I do or do not believe based solely on what I exhibit knowledge of through study and debate. I may or may not agree with any particular aspect of Christianity, but at least I understand it well enough to have a reasoned debate on the subject.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
